ArticleClinical cardiology2024
Primary mitral regurgitation: Toward a better quantification on left ventricular consequences.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications of Speckle Tracking Echocardiography in Stress Echocardiography: A Systematic Review on Feasibility, Diagnostic, and Clinical Utility.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2025Pooled it
- Risks factors of adverse clinical outcomes in asymptomatic mitral regurgitation patients with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Transthoracic and Transesophageal Echocardiography in the Diagnosis and Management of Mitral Regurgitation.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Longitudinal Myocardial Deformation as an Emerging Biomarker for Post-Traumatic Cardiac Dysfunction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Primary mitral regurgitation: Toward a better quantification on left ventricular consequences.Clinical cardiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) and ejection fraction (LVEF) are the parameters to look for when discussing repair in asymptomatic patients with a primary mitral regurgitation (PMR). Loading conditions are altering LV-function quantification. LV-myocardial work (LVMW) is a method based on pressure-strain loops. HYPOTHESIS: We sought to evaluate the additive value of the LVMW for predicting clinical events in patients with PMR.
methods103 patients (66% men, median age 57 years) with asymptomatic severe PMR were explored at rest and during an exercise stress echocardiography. LV myocardial global work index (GWI), constructive work (GCW), wasted work (GWW), and work efficiency (GWE) were measured with speckle-tracking echocardiography at rest and low workload. The indication for surgery was based on the heart teams' decision. The median follow-up was 670 days.
resultsClinical events occurred for 50 patients (48.5%) with a median of event-free survival distribution of 289 days. Systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) at rest was 32.61 ± 8.56 mmHg and did not predict the risk of event like LVEF and LVESD. Changes in, GLS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval (Cl): 0.36-0.83; p = .005), GWI (HR 1.01; 95% Cl: 1.00-1.02; p = .002) and GCW (HR 1.85; 95% Cl: 1.28-2.68; p = .001) in addition to Left Atrial Volume Index (HR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.28 - 2.33; p < 0,001) were independent predictors of events.
conclusionChanges in myocardial work indices related to low-dose exercise are relevant to best predict PMR patient prognosis It might help to better select patient's candidate for "early-surgery."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.