Atrial and ventricular functional mitral regurgitation: prevalence, characteristics, outcomes, and disease progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Limited data exist on the natural history of functional mitral regurgitation (FMR), including atrial (AFMR), ventricular (VFMR), and dual FMR. This study examined the prevalence, characteristics, outcomes, and progression of these FMR subtypes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with ≥mild to moderate FMR were included and classified as AFMR, VFMR, or dual FMR. AFMR is characterized by left atrial enlargement, while VFMR involves left ventricular enlargement or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Dual FMR combines features of both. Clinical outcome was all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Echocardiographic outcome was the progression from mild-moderate/moderate to severe FMR and from AFMR/VFMR to dual FMR. Of 22 814 patients, AFMR, VFMR, and dual FMR were identified in 39%, 14%, and 47%, respectively. Most (84%) had mild-moderate to moderate FMR. Over a median clinical follow-up of 4.7 years, dual FMR has the highest risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization. Compared with AFMR, patients with VFMR have a higher incidence of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR = 1.73, 95%CI 1.54-1.94, P < 0.001) and HF hospitalization (adjusted HR = 1.23, 95%CI 1.15-1.32, P < 0.001). In the serial cohort with 2.4 (1.0-4.9) years echocardiogram follow-up, VFMR was associated with a 1.51-fold and 3.08-fold increase in the risk of progressing to severe FMR and dual FMR than AFMR (both P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses did not change these findings. CONCLUSION: AFMR and VFMR have significant differences in survival and disease progression. Dual FMR is a common and distinct disease process that occurs in the progression of AFMR or VFMR and is associated with a poor prognosis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".