Back

Challenging the guidelines: Longitudinal Trends in Left Ventricular Diameter and Function in Severe Aortic Regurgitation

Schwartzenberg, S.; Berkovitz, A.; Lerman, T. T.; Bental, T.; Vaturi, M.; Goldberg, Y.; Shapira, Y.

2026-04-11 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.04.09.26350549 medRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) based on progressive changes in left ventricular (LV) function or size. We aimed to reassess the clinical relevance of current guideline recommendations pertaining to traditional echocardiographic measurements in routine practice. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with severe AR who underwent serial echocardiographic follow-up over at least 18 months. The composite outcome was symptom-driven AVR, acute heart failure hospitalization, or death. We used a joint modelling approach to handle within-subject correlation and censoring. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 140 patients, with a median follow?up of 93 months (interquartile range 58?130). LV end-systolic (LVESD) and fractional shortening (FS) showed a small but statistically significant longitudinal trend, while LVEDD did not. Changes in all three parameters in parallel joint models adjusted for age and gender were consistently associated with increased risk of the composite event. Each 1?mm increase in LVESD and LVEDD was associated with a 6% and 5% increase in risk, respectively; each 1% decrease in FS corresponded to a 12% increase in risk. Only 8 (5.7%) of patients were predicted to exceed the guideline-recommended LVEDD threshold of 65 mm over 10 years. Age at onset was also a significant risk factor, with each decade increasing risk by 65% for each of the three parallel joint models. CONCLUSIONS: LV parameters show modest changes over time, despite holding strong prognostic value in patients with severe AR. LVEDD, while associated with overall risk, does not predictably or significantly dilate over time in most patients. AVR decisions should be based on comprehensive clinical and volumetric assessment rather than waiting for simple linear progression to guideline cutoffs.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
12.1%
2
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.9%
3
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.2%
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.2%
5
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.7%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
9
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
10
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.9%
11
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
12
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
13
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
14
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
15
Circulation: Heart Failure
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.4%
18
JACC: Basic to Translational Science
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
19
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
20
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
21
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
23
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%