Progression of Non-Significant Mitral and Tricuspid Regurgitation after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Regurgitation
by
, , , ,
Shirit Kazum
1,2,
Mordehay Vaturi
1,2,
Idit Yedidya
1,2,
Shmuel Schwartzenberg
1,2,
Olga Morelli
1,2,
Keren Skalsky
1,2,
Hadas Ofek
1,2,
Ram Sharony
2,3,
Ran Kornowski
1,2,
Yaron Shapira
1,2 and
Alon Shechter
1,2,4,*
1
Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva 4941492, Israel
2
Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel
3
Department of Thoracic Heart Surgery, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva 4941492, Israel
4
Department of Cardiology, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(19), 6280; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12196280
Submission received: 20 August 2023
/
Revised: 27 September 2023
/
Accepted: 28 September 2023
/
Published: 29 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Valvular Heart Disease: From Basic to Clinical Advances)
Abstract
:Little is known about the natural history of non-significant mitral and tricuspid regurgitation (MR and TR) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic regurgitation (AR). We retrospectively analyzed 184 patients (median age 64 (IQR, 55–74) years, 76.6% males) who underwent SAVR for AR. Subjects with significant non-aortic valvulopathies, prior/concomitant valvular interventions, or congenital heart disease were excluded. The cohort was evaluated for MR/TR progression and, based on the latter’s occurrence, for echocardiographic and clinical indices of heart failure and mortality. By 5.8 (IQR, 2.8–11.0) years post-intervention, moderate or severe MR occurred in 20 (10.9%) patients, moderate or severe TR in 25 (13.5%), and either of the two in 36 (19.6%). Patients who developed moderate or severe MR/TR displayed greater biventricular disfunction and functional limitation and were less likely to be alive at 7.0 (IQR, 3.4–12.1) years compared to those who did not (47.2 vs. 79.7%, p < 0.001). The emergence of significant MR/TR was associated with preoperative atrial fibrillation/flutter, symptomatic heart failure, and above-mild MR/TR as well as concomitant composite graft use, but not with baseline echocardiographic measures of biventricular function and dimensions, aortic valve morphology, or procedural aspects. In conclusion, among patients undergoing SAVR for AR, significant MR/TR developed in one fifth by six years, correlated with more adverse course, and was anticipated by baseline clinical and echocardiographic variables.
1. Introduction
Aortic regurgitation (AR) is a condition in which the aortic valve (AV) fails to prevent systemic blood from back flowing into left ventricle (LV) during diastole. Constituting one of the most common valvular diseases in adults worldwide, AR usually manifests as a slowly progressive disease characterized by a gradual increase in LV volume load, a compensatory rise in chamber size and mass (i.e., eccentric remodeling and hypertrophy), and finally biventricular malfunction—ultimately translating to clinical heart failure (HF). At present, the definite treatment of unrepairable significant AR accompanied by signs or symptoms of cardiac dysfunction is surgical AV replacement (SAVR). While possible, addressing additional valvulopathies at the time of operation comes at the price of a lengthier procedure, potential complications, and higher costs, all of which could outweigh any theoretical benefit of a one-time multivalvular intervention. Yet, considering the worse prognosis and increased mortality associated with the co-presence of significant AR and mitral and/or tricuspid regurgitation (MR and/or TR) [1,2,3], current position papers and practice guidelines advocate the latter’s correction in parallel to SAVR [4,5,6]. Still, there is no consensus regarding the management of non-significant (i.e., less than moderate) MR and/or TR at the time of SAVR for AR, reflecting the paucity of data on the natural history of these valvular disorders in the context of AR, as most studies to date have focused on patients with either stenotic or mixed (rather than regurgitant) AV pathologies [7,8,9,10,11]. As a first step towards improving the decision-making process in this area of uncertainty, we examined the frequency of less than moderate MR or TR deterioration following SAVR for AR and further evaluated predictors for its occurrence, all using a large and contemporary database.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Population and Outcomes
Our study is based on the Rabin Medical Center registry of consecutive SAVR procedures performed for moderate-to-severe or severe AR on adult patients between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2020. Included in the study were patients who exhibited less than moderate MR or TR at the baseline and for whom there was at least one retrievable transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) prior to SAVR and two after it, one of them within the first six postprocedural months. We excluded patients with any of the following: 1. Greater than mild mitral or tricuspid stenosis; 2. Prior or concomitant non-aortic valvular interventions; 3. Concurrent LV assist device implantation; 4. Congenital heart disease; and 5. Acute intra- or postprocedural development of significant MR or TR due to a surgical complication.
The primary outcome was the incidence of MR or TR progression to moderate or severe on the last documented TTE. Based on the occurrence of this composite endpoint, the cohort was also retrospectively assessed for accompanying echocardiographic indices of ventricular and valvular function, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1-year and at the last visit, and all-cause mortality along the entire follow-up period.
Conforming to the Declaration of Helsinki, the study was approved by Rabin’s Institutional Review Board (number 0603-23-RMC) which waived the need for informed consent.
2.2. Procedural Aspects
SAVR was undertaken following a dedicated heart team discussion that considered the best medical evidence at the time, practice guidelines [5,6], and patient preferences. Most procedures were performed via median sternotomy. Cardiopulmonary bypass was achieved by ascending aortic and double-stage venous cannulations, utilizing antegrade moderate hypothermic (28–30 degrees Celsius) cardioplegia. Actual valve replacement was performed according to standard pledged and interrupted-suture techniques. Transesophageal echocardiography and right heart catheterization were used for guidance, monitoring, and evaluation of the surgical result, as appropriate.
2.3. Echocardiographic Assessment
Echocardiograms at all stages were performed and interpreted by a team of experienced sonographers and level III-trained echocardiologists in accordance with accepted guidelines [12,13,14,15]. The echo machines used were Sonos-5500, Sonos-7500, IE-33, and EPIQ-7 (Philips, Andover, MA, USA) as well as Vivid-7 and Vivid-I (General Electric, Boston, MA, USA).
Regurgitation severity at all positions was determined in real-time by integration of qualitative (e.g., color Doppler-driven) and (semi)quantitative (e.g., spectral Doppler-derived) measures, whenever feasible, and graded as 0 (none-to-minimal), 1 (mild or mild-to-moderate), 2 (moderate), 3 (moderate-to-severe), or 4 (severe and greater). For the purpose of the study and in view of the guidelines, MR and/or TR of moderate, moderate-to-severe, and severe degrees were collectively referred to as “moderate or severe.” In cases of diagnostic ambiguity regarding AR extent, a multimodality approach was employed as deemed appropriate by the treating team, which utilized cardiac magnetic resonance and/or cardiac computed tomography for better volumetric assessment of regurgitant fraction and LV function and dimensions [16,17].
Global right ventricular (RV) function was assessed qualitatively and RV dilatation was defined as an end-diastolic RV diameter of 4.2 cm or greater by the apical 4-chamber view.
2.4. Data Collection
Echocardiographic parameters were retrieved from electronically stored reports, which were verified and amended as needed by a consensus of at least two echocardiologists taking part in the heart team meetings. Clinical data, including past medical history, medications, procedures, providers’ notes, and test results, were extracted from a web-based medical chart (Ofek, dbMotion, Pittsburg, PA, USA) shared by all Israeli hospitals and health maintenance organizations. Demographic and mortality details were verified using governmental registries.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
The study cohort was analyzed in its entirety and based on the occurrence of the primary outcome. Variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), or means and standard deviations. Inter-group differences were evaluated using Pearson’s chi-square, Fisher’s exact, Mann–Whitney U, or Student’s t tests, as suitable. Change over time in the NYHA class was assessed by the McNemar test.
To identify potential predictors for the primary outcome, a multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was constructed which incorporated baseline and procedural variables of perceived prognostic value that also possessed a p-value of <0.1 on univariable models.
A two-sided p-value of <0.05 defined statistical significance. Cases with missing data were censored from the relevant calculations. All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 24 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characteristics of the Study Cohort
A total of 184 patients entered the analysis and were followed for 7.0 (IQR, 3.4–12.1) years (Figure 1). The study cohort had a median age of 64 (IQR, 55–74) years and a male predominance (n = 141, 76.6%) (Table 1). A little more than half (n = 96, 53.0%) of patients presented to surgery with symptomatic HF (i.e., NYHA class II and above).
AR was mainly isolated (n = 134, 72.8%) and the leading AR etiology was annular dilatation (Table 2). Bicuspid AV and significant (i.e., a ≥ 4.5-cm) ascending aortic dilatation were each observed in approximately a third of cases (n = 60, 34.1% and n = 50, 29.8%, respectively). Mild-to-moderate MR or TR affected at baseline 47 (25.5%) patients, 41 (87.2%) of whom displayed only MR. The most common mitral structural anomaly was prolapse and/or flail (n = 44, 23.9%), followed by rheumatic disease (n = 14, 7.6%) and annular calcification (n = 8, 4.3%).
3.2. Procedural Aspects
Most surgeries were elective and non-urgent and involved biologic valve implantation (Table 3). Overall, 25% (n = 46) incorporated an ascending aortic and/or aortic root replacement and close to one fifth (n = 32, 17.5%) were accompanied by coronary artery bypass grafting.
3.3. Outcomes
The last echocardiogram, performed at 5.8 (IQR, 2.8–11.0) years after surgery, revealed the primary outcome, namely a composite of moderate or severe MR or TR, in 36 (19.6%) patients (Table 4). Concomitantly, moderate or severe MR developed in 20 (10.9%) cases, moderate or severe TR in 25 (13.6%), and both in 9 (4.9%). New-onset severe MR or TR occurred in 26 (14.1%) patients.
Resembling the preprocedural stage, the primary outcome group experienced greater functional incapacitation at one year and at the last follow-up visits (Figure 2), the latter of which proved more profound compared to the baseline (p = 0.044), as opposed to the non-significant difference between the baseline and last NYHA status within the no primary outcome group (p = 0.205). All-cause mortality rate along the entire follow-up period was also higher among patients who developed moderate or severe MR or TR (n = 19, 52.8% vs. n = 30, 20.3%, p < 0.001) and the risk for mortality was increased by the emergence of moderate or severe MR or TR according to univariate analysis (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.10–3.18, p = 0.035). While death causes were mainly non-cardiovascular and equally distributed in the two study groups, mortality among patients sustaining the primary outcome tended to be cardiovascular more often (n = 8/19, 42.1% vs. n = 10/30, 33.3%, p = 0.081) (Supplemental Table S1).
3.4. Correlates of the Primary Outcome
Compared to patients who did not display moderate or severe MR or TR, those who did were more likely, at baseline, to exhibit atrial fibrillation/flutter, symptomatic HF, LV dysfunction, mitral valve structural abnormalities, and mild-to-moderate (vs mild or less) MR and/or TR. Also, they had a non-significantly larger ascending aortic diameter (but a marginally lower prevalence of bicuspid AV) and underwent composite graft implantation at the time of surgery more frequently. Notably, a higher incidence of moderate or severe TR, as well as of moderate or severe MR or TR, was observed among patients with mild-to-moderate (vs up-to-mild) TR or MR/TR prior to SAVR (Supplemental Table S2). The development of moderate or severe MR alone was independent of baseline MR, TR, and MR/TR severity.
Following SAVR, the primary outcome group exhibited a nominally higher residual AR grade, worse biventricular function, more pronounced chamber dilatation, and higher pulmonary arterial systolic pressure on the last documented echocardiogram (Table 4).
3.5. Predictors of the Primary Outcome
After multivariable analysis, four parameters were identified that independently conferred a higher risk for the emergence of moderate or severe MR or TR: the presence of atrial fibrillation/flutter (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.10–9.85, p = 0.033), symptomatic HF (OR 7.42, 95% CI 3.47–14.82, p = 0.004), and mild-to-moderate (vs up-to-mild) MR or TR (OR 4.17, 95% CI 1.35–12.91, p = 0.013) preprocedure, and the use of composite graft during surgery (OR 4.20, 95% CI 1.29–13.61, p = 0.017) (Table 5 and Supplemental Table S3). Risk factor distribution and the probability of this composite endpoint as a function of the number of risk factors are presented in Figure 3. Interestingly, neither echocardiographic measures of chamber function and dimensions, nor aortic/mitral valve morphology or surgical aspects, were predictive of the primary outcome.
4. Discussion
Our study evaluated the long-term progression of non-significant MR and TR following SAVR for AR. Analyzing the data of a single-center, 184-patient cohort, the great majority (72.8%) of which displayed pure AR, we found that: 1. The primary composite outcome of moderate or severe MR or TR development occurred in about one in five cases within six years after the intervention; 2. Patients with new-onset moderate or severe MR or TR tended to exhibit a greater residual AR and were more likely to suffer biventricular dysfunction and dilatation and pulmonary hypertension on the last documented echocardiogram; 3. The emergence of moderate or severe MR or TR was associated with worse functional status and increased all-cause mortality rate during the study’s seven-year follow-up period; and 4. The risk for the development of moderate or severe MR or TR was higher in the presence of preprocedural atrial fibrillation/flutter, symptomatic HF, and above-mild MR or TR, as well as by implantation of composite graft during the index operation.
Current data regarding the course of MR and TR after AV replacement (AVR) are derived from studies that either focused on aortic stenosis (AS) or highly-selected AR cases or utilized a rather short follow-up duration. Among patients with AS, MR grade has been shown to improve overtime following both surgical [18] and transcatheter [19] AVR, while TR worsening has been observed in up to 17% of cases post-procedure, inflicting lower survival [20,21,22,23]. In patients with AR, mild MR has deteriorated in 4% of patients after SAVR according to one report [24] and moderate or severe MR has occurred in 9.4% according to another [25]. Notably, the former study spanned 3.2 years of follow-up and found a direct correlation between the follow-up time and MR progression, whereas the latter, representing 10 ± 4 years of follow-up, analyzed 97 patients, all with bicuspid AV. Our study, with its novel design, longer surveillance time, and less strict inclusion criteria therefore provides robust and real-world data on the deterioration of MR or TR following SAVR for AR, which, according to our findings, could be relevant to a non-negligible portion of patients.
Three notions may be stressed based on the study’s results. The first is that MR or TR progression post SAVR for AR is a common phenomenon associated with more advanced HF and reduced survival. Although the last documented residual AR was non-significant (i.e., up-to-moderate) in most patients, the overall AR grade (as a continuous variable) was nominally higher among those experiencing the primary outcome, suggesting a potential link between the simultaneous deterioration of the three regurgitant lesions. Whether worsening of one valvular insufficiency mediated the other or whether all the three simply represented a common underlying pathology (e.g., cardiomyopathy, connective tissue disease, or inflammatory disorder) that was not addressed by the mere AV operation, is an interesting question that could not be reliably answered by our retrospective and small-scale analysis. As for the reason accounting for the increased functional incapacitation and mortality observed among patients with MR or TR deterioration post-SAVR, our findings suggest a cardiovascular-originated mechanism. This is in view of the numerically higher cardiovascular death rate as well as the more pronounced myocardial derangement (reflected by worse ventricular function and dilatation) that accompanied MR or TR progression. Once again, and considering the study’s design, we could not determine causality, stressing the need for larger, prospective research.
The second notion arising from our work is that the development of significant MR or TR after SAVR for AR could be anticipated based on easily measurable conditions prior to the intervention. Regarding atrial fibrillation/flutter, it could be that the arrhythmic aberration partially counteracted the beneficial effect of AR correction on cardiopulmonary hemodynamics and myocardial remodeling [26,27]. Symptomatic HF and pre-existent MR or TR, on their part, might have also expressed a more profound disease state initially, as suggested by the lower LVEF observed among patients who sustained moderate or severe MR or TR post-procedure. The mechanism responsible for the association between concomitant replacement of the aorta and MR or TR progression may have been related to a more widespread disease at the outset as well or again to the presence of a shared pathology such as collagen/elastin disorders. For this matter, while aortic root and ascending aortic diameters were not independently predictive of the risk for the primary outcome per se, a nominally larger ascending aortic diameter was nevertheless noted among patients who developed moderate or severe MR or TR. Considering similarities in body habitus, general comorbidities, and immediate AR etiologies across the two study groups, this finding could imply the existence of an intrinsic under-diagnosed connective tissue-related condition(s). Importantly, pre-operative morphological (e.g., rheumatic, calcific, or degenerative) aberrations at the mitral position, although not significantly associated with the risk for the occurrence of moderate or severe MR or TR, were also more common in patients who exhibited the primary outcome, thus suggesting a role for baseline structural anomalies in MR or TR progression too, as well as supporting the possibility of an underlying common disease process. As for parameters not shown to correlate with the risk for the primary outcome, it is plausible that the study’s small sample size and low number of observations and events prevented the appreciation of additional relevant predictors, mainly specific regurgitation etiologies (rheumatic heart disease in particular [22]), RV dysfunction, and pulmonary hypertension. These may be evaluated by future larger explorations as well.
On a final and more practical note, our study underscores the importance of guideline-directed multi-modality evaluation and management of those preprocedural conditions shown to be associated with MR or TR deterioration post SAVR for AR, including atrial fibrillation, HF [28,29], and various aortopathies [30,31]. Moreover, it suggests that patients with mild-to-moderate (vs up-to-mild) MR or TR may, under certain circumstances, benefit from interventional treatment of these valvulopathies at the time of the AV surgery. While this last notion is inherently hypothetical at present and not supported by current guidelines [32,33,34,35], it should be noted that the latter are based on studies that have stemmed from different populations than ours, namely patients undergoing SAVR for AS (in case of MR correction) or mitral valve surgery altogether (in case of TR intervention). Additional, prospective trials could attest or dispute the above-mentioned impressions and help identify and validate criteria for addressing non-significant MR and TR during SAVR that is performed for AR.
Limitations
First, the study’s single-center, retrospective design and small sample size, as well as the lack of a central and blinded data adjudication body, may all hamper the generalizability of the results. However, our cohort was one of the largest thus far in relative terms and resembled previously reported registries, therefore enhancing validity. Second, and again owing to the low number of cases and events, our predictive model should be regarded as exploratory, necessitating larger-scale confirmatory studies. Third, baseline structural characteristics of the mitral and tricuspid valves (e.g., annular dimensions) were not uniformly recorded, which prevented their consideration in the analyses. Fourth, imaging parameters were all determined by TTE studies only. However, this represented a well-accepted, real-world practice at the time of the registry, allowed for comparison of baseline and follow-up examinations in a larger subset of patients, and may facilitate the applicability of our findings. Acknowledging the fluctuating nature of regurgitant lesions, as well as the possible under-estimation of AR severity by TTE, we analyzed patients with both moderate-to-severe and severe AR at baseline.
5. Conclusions
In our single-center experience, significant MR or TR developed in one fifth of patients undergoing SAVR for AR by six years after the intervention, was associated with reduced functional capacity and survival, and correlated with baseline clinical and echocardiographic variables, including atrial fibrillation/flutter, symptomatic HF, mild-to-moderate MR or TR, and composite graft use. Further research is needed to validate our findings and assess their implication on the assessment and management of AR patients referred to SAVR both prior to and at the time of operation.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12196280/s1, Supplemental Table S1: Morality Along the Entire Follow-Up Period; Supplemental Table S2: Rates of Moderate or Severe Mitral and/or Tricuspid Regurgitation on the Last Echocardiogram According to Mitral and/or Tricuspid Regurgitation Severity at Baseline; Supplemental Table S3. Univariable Binary Logistic Regression Model for the Primary Outcome.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.K., M.V., and A.S.; Methodology, A.S.; Formal Analysis, A.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.K. and A.S.; Writing—Review and Editing, all co-authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel (protocol code 0603-23-RMC) on 13 June 2023.
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Tamir Bental for his assistance in data collection.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest to disclose.
Abbreviations
| AR | Aortic regurgitation |
| AV | Aortic valve |
| HF | Heart failure |
| MR | Mitral regurgitation |
| SAVR | Surgical aortic valve replacement |
| TR | Tricuspid regurgitation |
References
- Yang, L.-T.; Enriquez-Sarano, M.; Scott, C.G.; Padang, R.; Maalouf, J.F.; Pellikka, P.A.; Michelena, H.I. Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Patients with Chronic Aortic Regurgitation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacHaalany, J.; Bertrand, O.F.; Voisine, P.; O’Connor, K.; Bernier, M.; Dubois-Sénéchal, I.-N.; Jacques, P.-O.; Viel, I.; Dubois, M.; Sénéchal, M. Outcomes Following Surgical Correction of Pure Aortic Regurgitation in Presence or Absence of Significant Functional Mitral Regurgitation. Echocardiography 2014, 31, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, L.-T.; Enriquez-Sarano, M.; Scott, C.G.; Padang, R.; Maalouf, J.F.; Pellikka, P.A.; Michelena, H.I. Staging Cardiac Damage in Patients with Aortic Regurgitation. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 38, 2645–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, G.; Queirós, P.; Silva, M.; Saraiva, F.; Barros, A.; Ribeiro, J.; Fontes-Carvalho, R.; Sampaio, F. 2020 Focused Update of the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 75, 2236–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Writing Committee Members; Otto, C.M.; Nishimura, R.A.; Bonow, R.O.; Carabello, B.A.; Erwin, J.P., III.; Gentile, F.; Toly, C. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 77, 450–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vahanian, A.; Beyersdorf, F.; Praz, F.; Milojevic, M.; Baldus, S.; Bauersachs, J.; Capodanno, D.; Conradi, L.; De Bonis, M.; De Paulis, R.; et al. ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group, ESC National Cardiac Societies. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the Management of Valvular Heart Disease: Developed by the Task Force for the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 561–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pai, R.G.; Varadarajan, P. Prognostic Implications of Mitral Regurgitation in Patients with Severe Aortic Regurgitation. Circulation. 2010, 122, S43–S47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, J.Y.; Jung, S.H.; Kim, J.B.; Chung, C.H.; Lee, J.W.; Song, H.; Choo, S.-J. Management of Concomitant Mild to Moderate Functional Mitral Regurgitation During Aortic Valve Surgery for Severe Aortic Insufficiency. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2014, 148, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, F.H.; Desai, N.D.; Fox, Z.; George, J.; Moeller, P.; Vallabhajosyula, P.; Szeto, W.Y.; Bavaria, J.E. Moderate Mitral Regurgitation in Aortic Root Replacement Surgery: Comparing Mitral Repair with No Mitral Repair. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2014, 147, 938–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chancellor, W.Z.; Mehaffey, J.H.; Beller, J.P.; Hawkins, R.B.; Speir, A.M.; Quader, M.A.; Yarboro, L.T.; Teman, N.R.; Ailawadi, G. Impact of Tricuspid Regurgitation with and without Repair During Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2021, 162, 44–50.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bustamante-Munguira, J.; Alvarez, P.; Romero, B.; Muñoz-Guijosa, C.; Camara, M.; Vallejo, N.; Lopez-Ayerbe, J.; Coca, A.; Figuerola-Tejerina, A. Impact of Tricuspid Regurgitation Severity and Repair on Aortic Valve Replacement. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2022, 114, 767–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lang, R.M.; Badano, L.P.; Mor-Avi, V.; Afilalo, J.; Armstrong, A.; Ernande, L.; Voigt, J.U. Recommendations for Cardiac Chamber Quantification by Echocardiography in Adults: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 16, 233–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mitchell, C.; Rahko, P.S.; Blauwet, L.A.; Canaday, B.; Finstuen, J.A.; Foster, M.C.; Horton, K.; Ogunyankin, K.O.; Palma, R.A.; Velazquez, E.J. Guidelines for Performing a Comprehensive Transthoracic Echocardiographic Examination in Adults: Recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2019, 32, 1–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zoghbi, W.A.; Adams, D.; Bonow, R.O.; Enriquez-Sarano, M.; Foster, E.; Grayburn, P.A.; Hahn, R.T.; Han, Y.; Hung, J.; Lang, R.M.; et al. Recommendations for Noninvasive Evaluation of Native Valvular Regurgitation: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography Developed in Collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2017, 30, 303–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doherty, J.U.; Kort, S.; Mehran, R.; Schoenhagen, P.; Soman, P.; Amin, Z.; Bashore, T.M.; Boyle, A.; Calnon, D.A.; Carabello, B.; et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2018, 31, 381–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancellotti, P.; Pibarot, P.; Chambers, J.; La Canna, G.; Pepi, M.; Dulgheru, R.; Dweck, M.; Delgado, V.; Garbi, M.; Vannan, M.A.; et al. Scientific Document Committee of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Multi-modality imaging assessment of native valvular regurgitation: An EACVI and ESC Council of Valvular Heart Disease Position Paper. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 23, e171–e232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siani, A.; Perone, F.; Costantini, P.; Rodolfi, S.; Muscogiuri, G.; Sironi, S.; Carriero, S.; Pavon, A.G.; van der Bilt, I.; van Rosendael, P.; et al. Aortic regurgitation: A multimodality approach. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2022, 50, 1041–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kato, N.; Thaden, J.J.; Miranda, W.R.; Scott, C.G.; Sarano, M.E.; Greason, K.L.; Pellikka, P.A. Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis on Organic and Functional Mitral Regurgitation. ESC Heart Fail. 2021, 8, 5482–5492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witberg, G.; Codner, P.; Landes, U.; Schwartzenberg, S.; Barbanti, M.; Valvo, R.; De Backer, O.; Ooms, J.F.; Islas, F.; Marroquin, L.; et al. Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation and Its Impact on Mortality. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Interv. 2021, 14, 1181–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topilsky, Y.; Nkomo, V.T.; Vatury, O.; Michelena, H.I.; Letourneau, T.; Suri, R.M.; Pislaru, S.; Park, S.; Mahoney, D.W.; Biner, S.; et al. Clinical Outcome of Isolated Tricuspid Regurgitation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Imaging 2014, 7, 1185–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chorin, E.; Rozenbaum, Z.; Topilsky, Y.; Konigstein, M.; Ziv-Baran, T.; Richert, E.; Keren, G.; Banai, S. Tricuspid Regurgitation and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2020, 21, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Offen, S.; Playford, D.; Strange, G.; Stewart, S.; Celermajer, D.S. Adverse Prognostic Impact of Even Mild or Moderate Tricuspid Regurgitation: Insights from the National Echocardiography Database of Australia. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2022, 35, 810–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cremer, P.C.; Wang, T.K.M.; Rodriguez, L.L.; Lindman, B.R.; Zhang, Y.; Zajarias, A.; Hahn, R.T.; Lerakis, S.; Malaisrie, S.C.; Douglas, P.S.; et al. PARTNER II Investigators. Incidence and Clinical Significance of Worsening Tricuspid Regurgitation Following Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Analysis from the PARTNER IIA Trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, e010437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, H.; Guo, R.; Liu, D.; Hou, S.; Qiao, C.; Zhang, X. The Fate of Concomitant Mild Mitral Regurgitation in Aortic Insufficiency: A Neglected Subject. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 9, 1035490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girdauskas, E.; Disha, K.; Espinoza, A.; Misfeld, M.; Reichenspurner, H.; Borger, M.A.; Kuntze, T. Mitral Regurgitation After Previous Aortic Valve Surgery for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Insufficiency. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2017, 58, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deferm, S.; Bertrand, P.B.; Verbrugge, F.H.; Verhaert, D.; Rega, F.; Thomas, J.D.; Vandervoort, P.M. Atrial Functional Mitral Regurgitation: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 2465–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mesi, O.; Gad, M.M.; Crane, A.D.; Ramchand, J.; Puri, R.; Layoun, H.; Miyasaka, R.; Gillinov, M.A.; Wierup, P.; Griffin, B.P.; et al. Severe Atrial Functional Mitral Regurgitation: Clinical and Echocardiographic Characteristics, Management and Outcomes. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Imaging 2021, 14, 797–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Authors/Task Force Members; McDonagh, T.A.; Metra, M.; Adamo, M.; Gardner, R.S.; Baumbach, A.; Böhm, M.; Burri, H.; Butler, J. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure: Developed by the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2022, 24, 4–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perone, F.; Peruzzi, M.; Conte, E.; Sciarra, L.; Frati, G.; Cavarretta, E.; Pingitore, A. An Overview of Sport Participation and Exercise Prescription in Mitral Valve Disease. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2023, 10, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Writing Committee Members; Isselbacher, E.M.; Preventza, O.; Iii, J.H.B.; Augoustides, J.G.; Beck, A.W.; Bolen, M.A.; Braverman, A.C.; Bray, B.E.; Brown-Zimmerman, M.M.; et al. 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 80, e223–e393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wawak, M.; Tekieli, Ł.; Badacz, R.; Pieniążek, P.; Maciejewski, D.; Trystuła, M.; Przewłocki, T.; Kabłak-Ziembicka, A. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Aortic Arch Emergencies: Takayasu Disease, Fibromuscular Dysplasia, and Aortic Arch Pathologies: A Retrospective Study and Review of the Literature. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dreyfus, G.D.; Corbi, P.J.; Chan, K.M.; Bahrami, T. Secondary Tricuspid Regurgitation or Dilatation: Which Should be the Criteria for Surgical Repair? Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2005, 79, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chikwe, J.; Itagaki, S.; Anyanwu, A.; Adams, D.H. Impact of Concomitant Tricuspid Annuloplasty on Tricuspid Regurgitation, Right Ventricular Function, and Pulmonary Artery Hypertension After Repair of Mitral Valve Prolapse. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015, 65, 1931–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Badhwar, V.; Rankin, J.S.; He, M.; Jacobs, J.P.; Furnary, A.P.; Fazzalari, F.L.; O’brien, S.; Gammie, J.S.; Shahian, D.M. Performing Concomitant Tricuspid Valve Repair at the Time of Mitral Valve Operations Is Not Associated with Increased Operative Mortality. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2017, 103, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brescia, A.A.; Ward, S.T.; Watt, T.M.F.; Rosenbloom, L.M.; Baker, M.; Khan, S.; Ziese, E.; Romano, M.A.; Bolling, S.F.; Michigan Mitral Research Group (MMRG). Outcomes of Guideline-Directed Concomitant Annuloplasty for Functional Tricuspid Regurgitation. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2020, 109, 1227–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Study Flow Chart. AR = aortic regurgitation; IQR = interquartile range; LVAD = left ventricular assist device; MR = mitral regurgitation; MS = mitral stenosis; SAVR = surgical aortic valve replacement; TR = tricuspid regurgitation; TS = tricuspid stenosis.
Figure 1.
Study Flow Chart. AR = aortic regurgitation; IQR = interquartile range; LVAD = left ventricular assist device; MR = mitral regurgitation; MS = mitral stenosis; SAVR = surgical aortic valve replacement; TR = tricuspid regurgitation; TS = tricuspid stenosis.
Figure 2.
Post-Procedural Functional Status According to the Occurrence of the Primary Outcome. NYHA = New York Heart Association.
Figure 2.
Post-Procedural Functional Status According to the Occurrence of the Primary Outcome. NYHA = New York Heart Association.
Figure 3.
Risk Factor Burden Distribution and Correlation with the Primary Outcome. Bars represent the prevalence, at baseline, of the various risk factors counts. Red line illustrates the forecasted odds ratio for the occurrence of the primary outcome that was associated with each observed number of preprocedural risk factors. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.
Figure 3.
Risk Factor Burden Distribution and Correlation with the Primary Outcome. Bars represent the prevalence, at baseline, of the various risk factors counts. Red line illustrates the forecasted odds ratio for the occurrence of the primary outcome that was associated with each observed number of preprocedural risk factors. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.
Table 1.
Baseline Clinical Characteristics.
| Total Cohort (n = 184) | Primary Outcome (n = 36) | No Primary Outcome (n = 148) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic Data | ||||
| Age | ||||
| Median (years) | 64 (55–74) | 70 (57–76) | 62 (54–73) | 0.112 |
| ≥65 years | 89 (48.4) | 21 (58.3) | 68 (45.9) | 0.182 |
| Sex Male | 141 (76.6) | 24 (66.7) | 117 (79.1) | 0.115 |
| Comorbidities | ||||
| Body Surface Area, Mosteller Formula (m2) | 1.9 (1.8–2.1) | 1.9 (1.7–2.0) | 1.9 (1.8–2.1) | 0.207 |
| Body Mass Index (kg/m2) | 27.8 (24.5–30.3) | 28.1 (24.0–29.3) | 27.6 (24.6–31.1) | 0.845 |
| Obesity | 57 (33.9) | 8 (24.2) | 49 (36.3) | 0.190 |
| Hypertension | 122 (70.1) | 25 (69.4) | 97 (70.3) | 0.921 |
| Diabetes Mellitus | 53 (30.6) | 11 (30.6) | 42 (30.7) | 0.991 |
| Dyslipidemia | 135 (78.0) | 29 (80.6) | 106 (77.4) | 0.681 |
| Smoking History | 35 (20.2) | 5 (13.9) | 30 (21.9) | 0.287 |
| Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate, Cockcroft Formula (mL/kg/min) | 86.7 (67.9–113.5) | 78.6 (60.9–112.3) | 89.1 (70.1–114.2) | 0.298 |
| Stage ≥ III Chronic Kidney Disease | 29 (18.8) | 7 (23.3) | 22 (17.7) | 0.482 |
| Ischemic Heart Disease | 64 (36.8) | 18 (50.0) | 46 (33.3) | 0.065 |
| Prior Stroke/Transient Ischemic Attack | 23 (14.6) | 8 (25.0) | 15 (11.9) | 0.088 |
| Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter | 65 (38.2) | 22 (61.1) | 43 (32.1) | 0.001 |
| Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device | 20 (11.8) | 6 (16.7) | 14 (10.5) | 0.381 |
| Marfan Syndrome | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) | 1.000 |
| Symptomatic Status | ||||
| New York Heart Association Class | 0.012 | |||
| I | 85 (47.0) | 9 (25.0) | 76 (52.4) | |
| II | 73 (40.3) | 21 (58.3) | 52 (35.9) | |
| III | 23 (12.7) | 6 (16.7) | 17 (11.7) | |
| ≥II | 96 (53.0) | 27 (75.0) | 69 (47.6) | 0.005 |
Data are presented as number (percent) or median (interquartile range).
Table 2.
Baseline Echocardiographic Parameters.
| Total Cohort (n = 184) | Primary Outcome (n = 36) | No Primary Outcome (n = 148) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study Time Prior to Surgery (days) | 52 (13–192) | 51 (18–182) | 48 (11–208) | 0.563 |
| Aortic Valve | ||||
| Pure Aortic Regurgitation | 134 (72.8) | 30 (83.3) | 104 (70.3) | 0.114 |
| Aortic Regurgitation Severity | 0.511 | |||
| Moderate-to-Severe | 101 (54.9) | 18 (50.0) | 83 (56.1) | |
| Severe | 83 (45.1) | 18 (50.0) | 65 (43.9) | |
| Aortic Regurgitation Etiology | 0.421 | |||
| Annular Dilatation | 79 (65.8) | 16 (64.0) | 63 (66.3) | |
| Leaflet Prolapse/Flail | 14 (11.7) | 4 (16.0) | 10 (10.5) | |
| Leaflet Restriction | 10 (8.3) | 3 (12.0) | 7 (7.4) | |
| Endocarditis | 15 (12.5) | 1 (4.0) | 14 (14.7) | |
| Aortic Dissection | 2 (1.7) | 1 (4.0) | 1 (1.1) | |
| Moderate and Above Aortic Stenosis | 54 (29.3) | 6 (16.7) | 48 (32.4) | 0.062 |
| Bicuspid Aortic Valve | 60 (34.1) | 7 (20.0) | 53 (37.6) | 0.049 |
| Aorta | ||||
| Aortic Root Diameter (cm) | 3.6 (3.0–4.1) | 3.5 (2.9–4.3) | 3.6 (3.0–4.1) | 0.754 |
| Ascending Aortic Diameter | ||||
| Median (cm) | 4.1 (3.6–4.7) | 4.2 (3.9–4.9) | 4.0 (3.5–4.6) | 0.065 |
| ≥4 cm | 96 (57.1) | 21 (70.0) | 75 (54.3) | 0.116 |
| ≥4.5 cm | 50 (29.8) | 11 (36.7) | 39 (28.3) | 0.361 |
| Mitral and Tricuspid Valves | ||||
| Mitral Valve Anomalies | ||||
| Rheumatic Changes | 14 (7.6) | 3 (8.3) | 11 (7.4) | 0.739 |
| Annular Dilatation | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) | 0.621 |
| Annular Calcification | 8 (4.3) | 6 (16.7) | 2 (1.4) | 0.001 |
| Leaflet Prolapse/Flail | 44 (32.8) | 13 (43.3) | 31 (29.8) | 0.165 |
| Leaflet Restriction | 8 (4.3) | 4 (11.1) | 4 (2.7) | 0.048 |
| Leaflet Tethering/Retraction | 5 (2.7) | 4 (11.1) | 1 (0.7) | 0.005 |
| Diastolic Mitral Regurgitation | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) | 0.621 |
| Mitral and Tricuspid Regurgitation Grade | ||||
| Mitral | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 0.5 | <0.001 |
| Tricuspid | 0.4 ± 0.5 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.5 | 0.164 |
| Mild-to-Moderate Mitral or Tricuspid Regurgitation | ||||
| Mitral | 41 (22.3) | 15 (41.7) | 26 (17.6) | 0.002 |
| Tricuspid | 14 (7.7) | 6 (17.1) | 8 (5.4) | 0.030 |
| Either | 47 (25.5) | 16 (44.4) | 31 (20.9) | 0.004 |
| Left Heart Chambers | ||||
| Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction | ||||
| Median (%) | 60 (45–60) | 50 (41–60) | 60 (50–60) | 0.005 |
| <50% | 52 (28.9) | 16 (44.4) | 36 (25.0) | 0.021 |
| Regional Wall Motion Abnormality | 19 (10.3) | 5 (13.9) | 14 (9.5) | 0.540 |
| Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction | ||||
| Any | 66 (75.9) | 7 (87.5) | 59 (74.7) | 0.673 |
| Grade ≥2 | 14 (16.1) | 1 (12.5) | 13 (16.5) | 0.772 |
| Left Ventricular End-Systolic Diameter (cm) | 3.8 (3.3–4.5) | 4.1 (3.4–4.9) | 3.8 (3.3–4.4) | 0.213 |
| Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter (cm) | 5.7 (5.2–6.3) | 6.1 (5.1–6.4) | 5.7 (5.2–6.1) | 0.210 |
| Left Atrial Diameter (cm) | 4.2 (3.8–4.6) | 4.4 (3.9–4.7) | 4.1 (3.8–4.6) | 0.361 |
| Left Atrial Area (cm2) | 23.8 (20.0–27.0) | 25.5 (21.5–29.0) | 23.0 (19.5–26.5) | 0.072 |
| Right Heart Chambers | ||||
| Right Ventricular Dysfunction | 8 (4.5) | 3 (8.8) | 5 (3.5) | 0.184 |
| Right Ventricular Dilatation | 3 (1.7) | 1 (2.9) | 2 (1.4) | 0.477 |
| Tricuspid Annular Systolic Plane Excursion (mm) | 22.5 (16.8–26.8) | 15.0 (13.0–16.0) | 23.0 (19.0–27.0) | 0.250 |
| Pulmonary Arterial Systolic Pressure | ||||
| Median (mmHg) | 27 (21–35) | 32 (22–39) | 26 (21–33) | 0.103 |
| >40 mmHg | 8 (5.7) | 4 (12.9) | 4 (3.6) | 0.070 |
Data are presented as number (percent), median (interquartile range), or mean ± standard deviation.
Table 3.
Procedural Aspects.
| Total Cohort (n = 184) | Primary Outcome (n = 36) | No Primary Outcome (n = 148) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urgent Surgery | 9 (4.9) | 2 (5.6) | 7 (4.8) | 0.850 |
| Aortic Valve Prosthesis Type | 0.295 | |||
| Biologic | 130 (70.7) | 28 (77.8) | 102 (68.9) | |
| Mechanical | 54 (29.3) | 8 (22.2) | 46 (31.1) | |
| Concomitant Aortic Vascular Intervention | ||||
| Any | 46 (25.0) | 11 (30.6) | 35 (23.6) | 0.391 |
| Composite Graft Implantation | 35 (21.6) | 11 (37.9) | 24 (18.0) | 0.018 |
| Concomitant Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting | 32 (17.5) | 8 (22.2) | 24 (16.3) | 0.404 |
Data are presented as number (percent) or median (interquartile range).
Table 4.
Last Echocardiographic Findings.
| Total Cohort (n = 184) | Primary Outcome (n = 36) | No Primary Outcome (n = 148) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study Time After Surgery (years) | 5.8 (2.8–11.0) | 5.6 (2.7–10.8) | 5.8 (2.9–11.1) | 0.724 |
| Aortic Valve | ||||
| Residual Aortic Regurgitation Severity | ||||
| Up-to-Mild | 180 (97.8) | 34 (94.4) | 146 (98.6) | 0.172 |
| Moderate | 3 (1.6) | 2 (5.6) | 1 (0.7) | 0.098 |
| Above-Moderate | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) | 1.000 |
| Residual Aortic Regurgitation Grade | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.081 |
| Moderate and Above Aortic Stenosis | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) | 1.000 |
| Mitral and Tricuspid Valves | ||||
| Moderate or Severe Mitral or Tricuspid Regurgitation | <0.001 | |||
| Mitral | 20 (10.9) | 20 (55.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Tricuspid | 25 (13.6) | 25 (69.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Either | 36 (19.7) | 36 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Both | 9 (4.9) | 9 (25.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Severe Mitral or Tricuspid Regurgitation | 26 (14.1) | 26 (72.2) | 0 (0.0) | <0.001 |
| Mitral Regurgitation Grade | ||||
| Median | 0.8 ± 0.9 | 2.0 (±1.3) | 0.5 ± 0.5 | <0.001 |
| Change from Baseline | 0.2 ± 0.9 | 1.1 ± 1.2 | −0.1 ± 0.6 | <0.001 |
| Tricuspid Regurgitation Grade | ||||
| Median | 0.8 ± 1.0 | 2.3 ± 1.3 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | <0.001 |
| Change from Baseline | 0.4 ± 1.0 | 1.7 ± 1.1 | 0.1 ± 0.6 | <0.001 |
| Left Heart Chambers | ||||
| Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction | ||||
| Median (%) | 60 (50–60) | 55 (31–60) | 60 (50–60) | 0.010 |
| Change from Baseline (%) | ||||
| Absolute | 0 (−5–5) | 0 (−12–5) | 0 (−4–5) | 0.172 |
| Relative | 0.0 (−8.3–10.0) | 0.0 (−25.0–11.9) | 0.0 (−7.5–10.0) | 0.150 |
| <50% | 41 (22.8) | 16 (44.4) | 25 (17.4) | 0.001 |
| Left Ventricular End-Systolic Diameter | ||||
| Median (cm) | 3.1 (2.7–3.7) | 3.4 (2.8–4.9) | 3.0 (2.7–3.6) | 0.011 |
| Change from Baseline | ||||
| Absolute (cm) | −0.7 (−1.3–0.0) | −0.5 (−1.3–1.6) | −0.7 (−1.3–[−0.1]) | 0.097 |
| Relative (%) | −18.7 (−30.3–0.0) | −12.5 (−31.3–12.7) | −19.4 (−30.2–[−2.7]) | 0.163 |
| Left Atrial Diameter | ||||
| Median (cm) | 4.3 (3.7–4.9) | 5.0 (4.5–5.4) | 4.2 (3.7–4.7) | <0.001 |
| Change from Baseline | ||||
| Absolute (cm) | 0.1 (−0.4–0.8) | 0.8 (−0.2–1.3) | 0.1 (−0.5–0.7) | 0.010 |
| Relative (%) | 2.8 (−10.1–19.4) | 18.6 (−3.7–30.2) | 2.1 (−11.1–17.0) | 0.013 |
| Right Heart Chambers | ||||
| Right Ventricular Dysfunction | 20 (11.8) | 13 (40.6) | 7 (5.1) | <0.001 |
| Right Ventricular Dilatation | 22 (12.9) | 10 (30.3) | 12 (8.7) | 0.001 |
| Pulmonary Arterial Systolic Pressure | ||||
| Median (mmHg) | 29 (22–34) | 35 (30–46) | 26 (22–32) | <0.001 |
| Change from Baseline | ||||
| Absolute (mmHg) | 0 (−8–8) | 4 (−6–18) | −1 (−9–6) | 0.117 |
| Relative (%) | −4.3 (−26.6–26.8) | 10.5 (−17.2–63.6) | −8.0 (−27.3–20.3) | 0.063 |
| >40 mmHg | 17 (12.7) | 10 (31.3) | 7 (6.9) | 0.001 |
Data are presented as number (percent), median (interquartile range), or mean ± standard deviation.
Table 5.
Multivariable Binary Logistic Regression Model for the Primary Outcome.
| OR (95% CI) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (Continuous) | 0.99 (0.94–1.04) | 0.599 |
| Ischemic Heart Disease | 1.22 (0.41–3.61) | 0.724 |
| Prior Stroke/Transient Ischemic Attack | 2.39 (0.66–8.58) | 0.182 |
| Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter | 3.30 (1.10–9.85) | 0.033 |
| New York Heart Association Class ≥ II | 7.42 (3.47–14.82) | 0.004 |
| Bicuspid Aortic Valve | 0.37 (0.09–1.50) | 0.163 |
| Mild-to-Moderate Mitral or Tricuspid Regurgitation | 4.17 (1.35–12.91) | 0.013 |
| Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (continuous) | 0.98 (0.93–1.03) | 0.446 |
| Composite Graft Use | 4.20 (1.29–13.61) | 0.017 |
CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Kazum, S.; Vaturi, M.; Yedidya, I.; Schwartzenberg, S.; Morelli, O.; Skalsky, K.; Ofek, H.; Sharony, R.; Kornowski, R.; Shapira, Y.; et al. Progression of Non-Significant Mitral and Tricuspid Regurgitation after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Regurgitation. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 6280. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12196280
AMA Style
Kazum S, Vaturi M, Yedidya I, Schwartzenberg S, Morelli O, Skalsky K, Ofek H, Sharony R, Kornowski R, Shapira Y, et al. Progression of Non-Significant Mitral and Tricuspid Regurgitation after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Regurgitation. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(19):6280. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12196280
Chicago/Turabian StyleKazum, Shirit, Mordehay Vaturi, Idit Yedidya, Shmuel Schwartzenberg, Olga Morelli, Keren Skalsky, Hadas Ofek, Ram Sharony, Ran Kornowski, Yaron Shapira, and et al. 2023. "Progression of Non-Significant Mitral and Tricuspid Regurgitation after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Regurgitation" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 19: 6280. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12196280
APA StyleKazum, S., Vaturi, M., Yedidya, I., Schwartzenberg, S., Morelli, O., Skalsky, K., Ofek, H., Sharony, R., Kornowski, R., Shapira, Y., & Shechter, A. (2023). Progression of Non-Significant Mitral and Tricuspid Regurgitation after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Regurgitation. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(19), 6280. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12196280
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
