Combined Significant Aortic Stenosis and Mitral Regurgitation: Challenges in Timing and Type of Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this narrative review, we aim to summarize the literature surrounding the assessment and management of the common, yet understudied combination of aortic stenosis (AS) and mitral regurgitation (MR), the components of which are complexly inter-related and interdependent from diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic perspectives. The hemodynamic interdependency of AS and MR confounds the assessment of the severity of each valve disease, thus underscoring the importance of a multimodal approach integrating valvular and extravalvular indicators of severity. A large body of literature suggests that baseline MR is associated with reduced survival post aortic valve (AV) intervention and that regression of MR post-AV intervention confers a mortality benefit. Functional MR is more likely to regress after AV intervention than primary MR. The respective natural courses of the 2 valve diseases are not synchronized; therefore, significant AS and MR at or above the respective threshold for intervention might not coincide. Surgery is primarily a 1-stop-shop procedure because of a considerable perioperative risk of repeat interventions, whereas transcatheter treatment modalities allow for a more tailored timing of intervention with reassessment of concomitant MR after AV replacement and a potential staged intervention in the absence of MR regression. In summary, AS and MR, when combined, are interlaced into a complex hemodynamic, diagnostic, and prognostic synergy, with important therapeutic implications. Contemporary approaches should consider stepwise intervention by exploiting the advantage of transcatheter options. However, evidence is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of different timing and therapeutic options.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".