Key result
Baseline aortic valve lesion severity independently predicted the progression of aortic stenosis and insufficiency after isolated mitral valve replacement (HR 4.2; 95% CI 1.9-9.1; p<0.001).
Why the study?
The natural history of coexisting mild or moderate aortic valve disease after isolated mitral valve replacement for rheumatic mitral disease is not well understood.
Does baseline aortic valve disease severity predict the progression of aortic stenosis or insufficiency in adult patients undergoing isolated mitral valve replacement for rheumatic heart disease?
Cohort (n=403)
No
Does baseline aortic valve disease severity predict the progression of aortic stenosis or insufficiency in adult patients undergoing isolated mitral valve replacement for rheumatic heart disease?
Hazard Ratio: 4.2 (95% CI 1.9–9.1)
p-value: p=< 0.001
Baseline aortic valve involvement independently predicts subsequent deterioration after isolated mitral valve replacement for rheumatic heart disease, suggesting moderate AS warrants closer follow-up while prophylactic AVR is not supported for mild AI.
May support closer surveillance for moderate baseline lesions after mitral replacement; leaves open whether thresholds for intervention should change.
Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) frequently affects both mitral and aortic valves. While mitral valve replacement (MVR) is often prioritized, the natural history of coexisting aortic valve disease particularly when mild or moderate is less well understood. The objective of this study is to assess the progression of aortic stenosis (AS) and aortic insufficiency (AI) in patients undergoing isolated MVR for rheumatic mitral disease. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study involving 403 adult patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease who underwent isolated MVR at Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center between 2010 and 2022. Patients with a history of aortic valve replacement or early postoperative mortality (defined as death within 30 days of surgery) were excluded. Serial transthoracic echocardiography was performed at baseline, 3 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter, with a mean follow-up duration of 78 months. We evaluated baseline and longitudinal changes in the severity of aortic stenosis (AS) and aortic insufficiency (AI), as well as alterations in left ventricular function and pulmonary artery pressures over time. The severity of aortic valve disease was classified according to the American Heart Association (AHA) 2020 and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2025 guidelines. At baseline, 9.2% had AS (6.2% mild, 3.0% moderate) and 67% had AI (57.6% mild, 9.4% moderate). During our follow up among patients with mild AS, we observed sever AS is 20% progressing to severe AS, compared with 41.7% progressing to moderate AS. For AI, we observed 3.0% progression to severe AI for patients with mild baseline disease and is 7.8% for patients with moderate baseline disease. Baseline aortic valve lesion severity independently predicted progression (HR 4.2, 95% CI 1.9–9.1, p < 0.001). No other clinical or echocardiographic parameters were significant. Survival analysis showed higher cumulative progression rates among those with baseline lesions (p < 0.001). Baseline aortic valve involvement predicts subsequent deterioration after MVR. Routine prophylactic AVR is not supported for mild AI, but moderate AS warrants closer follow-up and individualized surgical consideration. Larger, prospective studies are needed to refine risk prediction for concomitant aortic intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khesali et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Rheumatic mitral valve disease (n=403). Baseline aortic valve lesion severity vs. Lesser or no baseline aortic valve disease was evaluated on Progression of aortic stenosis and aortic insufficiency (HR 4.2, 95% CI 1.9-9.1, p=< 0.001). Baseline aortic valve lesion severity independently predicted the progression of aortic stenosis and insufficiency after isolated mitral valve replacement (HR 4.2; 95% CI 1.9-9.1; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: