Prevalence, Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Heart Failure Patients with or Without Isolated or Combined Mitral and Tricuspid Regurgitation: An Analysis from the ESC-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Mitral regurgitation (MR) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are common in patients with heart failure (HF). The aim of this study was to investigate prevalence, clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with or without isolated or combined MR and TR across the entire HF spectrum. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ESC-HFA EORP HF Long-Term Registry is a prospective, multicentre, observational study including patients with HF and 1-year follow-up data. Outpatients without aortic valve disease were included and stratified according to isolated or combined moderate/severe MR and TR. Among 11 298 patients, 7541 (67%) had no MR/TR, 1931 (17%) isolated MR, 616 (5.5%) isolated TR and 1210 (11%) combined MR/TR. Baseline characteristics were differently distributed across MR/TR categories. Compared to HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction was associated with a lower risk of isolated MR (odds ratio [OR] 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.80), and distinctly lower risk of combined MR/TR (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41-0.62). HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was associated with a distinctly lower risk of isolated MR (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.36-0.49), and combined MR/TR (OR 0.59; 95% 0.50-0.70), but a distinctly increased risk of isolated TR (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.61-2.33). All-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization and combined outcomes occurred more frequently in combined MR/TR, isolated TR and isolated MR versus no MR/TR. The highest incident rates were observed in isolated TR and combined MR/TR. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of outpatients with HF, prevalence of isolated and combined MR and TR was relatively high. Isolated TR was driven by HFpEF and was burdened by an unexpectedly poor outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".