Atrial fibrillation worsens outcome of mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation: Long-term follow-up of 959 patients

Figures

• 

  Freedom from composite adverse events between patients in sinus rhythm and those with atrial fibrillation. Shaded area represents 95% confidence interval.

• 

  Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from all-cause mortality and composite adverse events. A and B, Results for the unmatched cohort. C and D, Results for the propensity score–matched cohort. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals. Numbers at risk are shown below each panel. AF, Atrial fibrillation.

• 

  Figure 2. Serial echocardiographic results for left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (A), left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) (B), left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (C), left atrial (LA) dimension (D), and tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient (TRPG) (E) in the 2 study groups.

• 

  Figure 3. Serial echocardiographic results for mitral regurgitation (MR) (A) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) (B) in the two study groups.

• 

  Figure 4. Forest plot illustrating the excess risk of composite events associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) overall and in subgroups of patients, according to the presence/absence of guideline-endorsed predictors of outcome in degenerative mitral regurgitation. The hazard ratio is set at 1 for sinus rhythm. The P value for interaction is reported on the right. The sample size of patients in each specific subgroup is reported as a number. LV, Left ventricular; TRPG, tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient.

• 

  Figure 5. Patient enrollment, endpoints and main results including all-cause mortality (sinus vs atrial fibrillation [AF]), composite adverse events (sinus vs AF) and composite adverse events (sinus vs paroxysmal AF vs persistent AF) in an unmatched cohort. MR, Mitral regurgitation; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; AF, atrial fibrillation.

• 

  Figure E1. Jitter plot indicating the distribution of propensity scores for matched and unmatched patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and sinus rhythm.

• 

  Figure E2. Kaplan-Meier estimates of composite adverse events among patients with sinus rhythm, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), and persistent AF in the unmatched cohort. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals, and numbers at risk are shown below the plot.

• 

  Figure E3. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from all-cause mortality (A) and composite adverse events (B) in a propensity score–matched cohort (n = 203 per group) in which left atrial LA dimension was included in the matching model. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals, and numbers at risk are shown below each panel. AF, Atrial fibrillation.

• 

  Figure E4. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from composite adverse events in the unmatched (A) and propensity score–matched (B) cohorts. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals, and numbers at risk are shown below each panel. AF, Atrial fibrillation.