Mitral Regurgitation (MR): A Cardiologist's Guide to Causes, Severity, and Treatment

Mitral regurgitation is one of the most common valve diagnoses I make in my Encinitas practice, and it is also one of the most variable in how it behaves. Some patients live with mild MR for decades and never need anything beyond an annual echo. Others develop severe MR that quietly damages the left ventricle until intervention is the only option. The difference between those two trajectories comes down to early identification, accurate severity grading, and timing of referral to a heart valve team.

What Is Mitral Regurgitation?

Mitral regurgitation is a leak in the mitral valve that allows blood to flow backward from the left ventricle into the left atrium during ventricular systole. It is one of the most common valvular disorders in US adults, with prevalence rising sharply after age 65.

The mitral valve sits between the left atrium and the left ventricle. With every heartbeat, it opens to let oxygen-rich blood from the lungs fill the ventricle, then closes tightly as the ventricle contracts so that all the blood goes forward through the aortic valve and out to the body. When the mitral valve fails to close completely, a portion of each stroke volume leaks backward into the atrium. That backflow is mitral regurgitation.

I divide MR into two clinically distinct categories at every first visit: primary and secondary. Primary (degenerative) MR is a structural problem with the valve itself, the leaflets, chordae tendineae, papillary muscles, or annulus. The most common cause is myxomatous mitral valve prolapse. Less common causes include rheumatic disease, infective endocarditis, papillary muscle rupture after a heart attack, and connective-tissue disorders like Marfan or Ehlers-Danlos syndromes. Secondary (functional) MR is a problem with the heart muscle around an otherwise structurally normal valve. The valve is pulled open by ventricular dilation in heart failure or by atrial enlargement in long-standing atrial fibrillation.

This distinction drives every downstream decision. Primary MR is fixed by repairing or replacing the valve. Secondary MR often requires treating the underlying cardiomyopathy or atrial fibrillation first, with the valve intervention layered on if the leak persists.

How Does Mitral Regurgitation Develop?

MR develops either because the valve itself becomes structurally abnormal (primary MR, most often degenerative mitral valve prolapse) or because the heart muscle around an otherwise normal valve has changed shape and pulled the valve open (secondary MR, most often from heart failure or chronic atrial fibrillation).

In primary MR, the valve apparatus degenerates over years to decades. In mitral valve prolapse, the leaflets become floppy and bulge backward into the atrium during ventricular contraction; the chordae tendineae stretch or rupture, breaking the seal. Endocarditis destroys leaflet tissue acutely. Rheumatic disease scars and thickens the leaflets, often producing combined stenosis and regurgitation. Papillary muscle rupture after a heart attack creates dramatic, acute severe MR that is a surgical emergency.

In secondary MR, the leaflets and chordae look unremarkable on echo, but the ventricle around them is dilated and dysfunctional. As the left ventricle remodels in heart failure, the papillary muscles are displaced outward and the mitral annulus stretches; the leaflets can no longer reach each other to seal. Severe atrial fibrillation can produce a similar functional MR through atrial dilation alone.

The hemodynamic consequence is the same regardless of cause. With each beat, a portion of stroke volume goes backward into the left atrium instead of forward to the aorta. The ventricle compensates by enlarging to maintain forward output, eccentric hypertrophy with progressive LV dilation. The atrium enlarges to accept the regurgitant volume. Eventually, pulmonary venous pressure rises and the patient develops shortness of breath, fatigue, and atrial fibrillation. If left alone long enough, the LV decompensates and ejection fraction falls.

How Is Mitral Regurgitation Graded on Echocardiogram?

MR severity is graded as trivial, mild, moderate, or severe based on three echocardiographic numbers: regurgitant volume per beat, effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA), and vena contracta width. Severity grade drives every clinical decision in MR management.

Mitral Regurgitation Severity Grading

The cornerstone test is a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). When the TTE is inconclusive or the patient is being considered for intervention, I add a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), which puts an ultrasound probe directly behind the heart through the esophagus and produces images of the mitral apparatus that no surface technique can match. Cardiac MRI is my third-line tool for situations where echo is technically limited or when accurate regurgitant volume measurement is critical.

The integrated grade is what matters, not any single parameter in isolation. A vena contracta of 8 mm without LA enlargement is unusual and should prompt a second look at technique. Conversely, an EROA below 0.40 cm² in a patient with a regurgitant volume of 80 mL is in fact severe; the EROA can underestimate severity in eccentric jets. The 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines and 2020 ACC/AHA valvular disease guideline both emphasize an integrated, multi-parameter approach.

Severity grade is anchored in three additional findings that often tip a borderline study into the severe category: left atrial enlargement (LA volume index ≥ 60 mL/m²), pulmonary hypertension (pulmonary artery systolic pressure > 50 mmHg at rest or > 60 mmHg with exercise), and atrial fibrillation as a new finding in a previously sinus-rhythm patient.

When Does Mitral Regurgitation Need Treatment?

Severe primary MR with symptoms, with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF < 60%), with LV end-systolic dilation (LV end-systolic diameter ≥ 40 mm), or with new atrial fibrillation or pulmonary hypertension is an indication for intervention. Asymptomatic severe MR with preserved LVEF is followed every 6–12 months until any of those triggers appear.

The 2020 ACC/AHA valvular heart disease guideline anchors the timing decision in five triggers: symptoms (Class I); LVEF below 60% (Class I); LV end-systolic diameter at 40 mm or above (Class IIa); new atrial fibrillation (Class IIa); and new pulmonary hypertension (Class IIa). When any one of those appears, the patient is referred to a heart valve team for definitive treatment.

The reason intervention timing matters so much in primary MR is that the left ventricle in severe MR looks artificially good. The ventricle is unloading into a low-pressure atrium during systole, which inflates the apparent ejection fraction. An LVEF of 55% in severe MR is actually a sign of LV dysfunction, the ventricle should be hyperdynamic at that loading condition. Once the LVEF drops below 60%, irreversible myocyte injury has often already occurred. Waiting for “real” LV dysfunction is waiting too long.

Secondary MR is a different decision tree. Here the underlying problem is the cardiomyopathy or atrial dilation, and the leak is downstream. The first step is optimal guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure: ACE inhibitor or ARB (or sacubitril-valsartan), beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor. Some patients see their secondary MR improve substantially with medical therapy alone as the ventricle reverse-remodels. For patients who remain symptomatic with severe secondary MR despite optimal medical therapy, the COAPT trial established the role of the MitraClip in carefully selected patients.

What Are the Treatment Options for Mitral Regurgitation?

Severe primary MR is best treated with surgical mitral valve repair when feasible (preferred over replacement). Replacement is reserved for valves that cannot be repaired. Selected high-surgical-risk patients and many patients with severe secondary MR are candidates for transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER, MitraClip). Medical therapy alone does not fix the leak but is essential adjunctive care.

Mitral Regurgitation Treatment Options

Surgical mitral valve repair is the gold-standard intervention for severe primary MR. The surgeon reshapes the leaflets, replaces ruptured chordae with PTFE neochords, and supports the annulus with an annuloplasty ring. In experienced centers, repair rates above 95% are achievable for degenerative mitral valve prolapse, and repaired valves are durable. The major freedom-from-reoperation curves extend well beyond 20 years. Repair preserves the native valve geometry and avoids the long-term anticoagulation and prosthesis-related complications of replacement.

Surgical mitral valve replacement becomes the right choice when the valve is too destroyed to repair. Classic situations include rheumatic disease with leaflet calcification, endocarditis with extensive tissue loss, and some forms of severe secondary MR. The choice between a mechanical and a bioprosthetic valve hinges on age, anticoagulation tolerance, and patient preference. Mechanical valves last indefinitely but require lifelong warfarin (DOACs are not approved for mechanical valves). Bioprosthetic valves do not require long-term anticoagulation but degenerate over 10–20 years.

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) with the MitraClip is a catheter-delivered procedure in which one or more clips are placed to grasp and approximate the anterior and posterior leaflets at the site of the leak. The MitraClip is FDA-approved for high-surgical-risk patients with severe primary MR and for selected patients with severe secondary MR on the basis of the COAPT trial. Recovery is measured in days, not weeks. The PASCAL device is a newer entrant in the same space. Neither device typically eliminates MR but rather reduces severe MR by one or two grades.

Heart Team consultation is built into modern valve care. The decision tree for severe MR is multidimensional. Primary versus secondary, leaflet anatomy, ventricular function, comorbidities, surgical risk score, and patient preferences all factor in, and the right answer is rarely obvious from a single perspective. In my Encinitas practice, I refer severe MR patients to the regional heart valve team for joint review.

What Are Common Misconceptions About Mitral Regurgitation?

The most damaging misconceptions are that any leak requires immediate surgery, that mitral valve prolapse always progresses to severe MR, that medications can fix the leak, and that mitral valve replacement is equivalent to repair. None of these are true.

A trace or trivial leak shows up on a sensitive echocardiogram in most healthy adults. It is essentially physiologic and does not need treatment or surveillance. Patients regularly come in alarmed by a report mentioning “trace mitral regurgitation” when the finding has no clinical significance whatsoever.

Mitral valve prolapse affects roughly 2% of US adults and is mostly benign. Most patients with MVP never develop significant MR, never need any intervention, and live entirely normal lives. A subset progress to severe MR over decades, typically driven by chordal rupture, and those patients can be identified by surveillance imaging long before symptoms appear.

Medical therapy does not repair a structurally damaged valve. ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers can offload the heart, reduce afterload, and modestly shrink the regurgitant fraction in some patients, but they do not close the leak. In secondary MR, medical therapy is the first move and sometimes the only one needed. In primary MR, medical therapy is adjunctive. The leak itself requires a mechanical solution.

Repair and replacement are not interchangeable. In primary MR, repair has better short-term mortality, better long-term survival, lower infection risk, and lower thromboembolic risk than replacement. The default in modern valve centers is to repair whenever the anatomy allows. Replacement is the fallback, not the equal choice.

What Are the Limitations of Current Treatments?

Surgical repair, while excellent, is not always feasible. Some valves cannot be repaired and must be replaced. The MitraClip and other transcatheter approaches reduce but rarely eliminate MR. Surgical repair durability depends heavily on operator experience; outcomes at high-volume centers significantly exceed national averages. Secondary MR remains the harder clinical problem because the underlying cardiomyopathy persists after the valve is treated.

Surgical repair durability is excellent at high-volume centers but more variable elsewhere. Operator experience is the strongest predictor of long-term repair survival, and the difference between a high-volume center and a low-volume center can mean the difference between a repair that lasts 20 years and one that fails at five. I send my patients to centers that perform several hundred mitral repairs per year.

The MitraClip does not eliminate MR. The COAPT trial showed reductions in hospitalization and mortality in selected patients with severe secondary MR, but residual moderate MR after the procedure is common. In primary MR, surgical repair generally produces a better hemodynamic result than TEER, which is why surgery remains the first-line option for surgical candidates with primary MR.

Timing decisions for asymptomatic severe MR remain difficult. The triggers in the 2020 ACC/AHA valve guideline (LVEF, LV end-systolic diameter, new atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension) are useful but imperfect. Some patients develop irreversible LV dysfunction before any of them fire. Strain imaging on echo is emerging as a more sensitive tool for catching subclinical LV dysfunction earlier.

For secondary MR, the underlying problem is the cardiomyopathy, and even successful valve intervention leaves that disease in place. The benefit of MitraClip in the COAPT population was meaningful but not curative. MITRA-FR, a parallel European trial, showed less benefit, likely because the patients had more advanced disease and the leaks were more “proportionate” to the LV enlargement. Patient selection matters enormously.

When Should You NOT Pursue Mitral Regurgitation Treatment?

Aggressive treatment is appropriate for most patients with severe symptomatic MR, but should be reconsidered when the patient has advanced age with limited life expectancy, severe comorbidity that makes any intervention high-risk, advanced heart failure with already-irreversible LV remodeling, or frailty that would make recovery prohibitive. In those situations, palliative medical therapy is the right call.

A few specific scenarios shift the calculus. A patient with severely depressed LV function and a dilated ventricle that has not improved with optimal heart failure therapy is unlikely to recover meaningfully after valve intervention; the ventricle is the problem, not the valve. Severe fixed pulmonary hypertension, especially with right ventricular failure, raises the operative risk substantially and shrinks the projected benefit.

Patient frailty and competing comorbidities, advanced cancer, end-stage kidney or liver disease, dementia, change the question from “can we fix the leak” to “will the patient benefit.” When projected life expectancy is short or when surgical recovery would consume more functional reserve than the patient has, watchful management and symptom-focused care is the more honest path.

Mild and moderate MR rarely need intervention regardless of patient factors. The risk-benefit math is straightforward. You cannot improve on what is already a low event rate.

What Should You Expect During Treatment and Recovery?

Expect serial echocardiography every 6–12 months if you have severe asymptomatic MR. Post-surgical recovery from mitral valve repair takes 4–8 weeks for most patients, with cardiac rehabilitation accelerating return to full function. MitraClip recovery is shorter, typically 1–2 weeks for most activities. Expect periodic echocardiograms for the rest of your life regardless of which intervention you have.

For surgical mitral valve repair, the typical pathway is a sternotomy or right mini-thoracotomy, three to five days in the hospital, and four to eight weeks of recovery before returning to full activity. Cardiac rehabilitation accelerates that timeline and produces measurable gains in functional capacity. Most patients are back to driving at three to four weeks, back to sedentary work at six weeks, and back to vigorous exercise at 10 to 12 weeks.

For the MitraClip, the procedure is done through a vein in the groin and most patients are discharged the next day. Recovery is measured in days. Patients are typically back to normal activity within one to two weeks. The trade-off is that the hemodynamic result is usually less complete than surgical repair, particularly in primary MR.

Anticoagulation after mitral valve surgery depends on the procedure. After mitral valve repair, three months of anticoagulation is typical, usually with warfarin or a DOAC. After bioprosthetic replacement, three to six months. After mechanical replacement, lifelong warfarin is required, DOACs are not approved for mechanical valves. If atrial fibrillation is present, anticoagulation may be needed lifelong regardless of valve type.

Long-term surveillance after any intervention is annual echocardiography for life. Repair durability is measured in decades, but recurrent MR can develop in 10–15% of patients within 10–15 years, more often if the original pathology was complex.

How Does Mitral Regurgitation Fit Into Overall Cardiac Care?

MR is rarely an isolated problem. It commonly coexists with atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and heart failure, each of which needs its own management. The mitral valve team approach (cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, imaging cardiologist) ensures the whole picture gets addressed.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common coexisting problem. Long-standing MR enlarges the left atrium, which predisposes to atrial fibrillation, which in turn worsens the MR by removing the atrial contribution to ventricular filling and dilating the atrium further. When a patient with significant MR develops atrial fibrillation, I aggressively pursue rhythm control, sometimes with catheter ablation, and consider concomitant surgical Maze procedure at the time of mitral surgery if appropriate.

Coronary artery disease coexists with secondary MR in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. In those cases, I combine the mitral intervention with coronary revascularization at a single operation, typically coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral repair or replacement. The combined operation has a higher operative risk but addresses both problems at once.

Hypertension contributes to MR severity by raising afterload and driving more blood through the regurgitant orifice with each beat. Aggressive blood pressure control, often to below 130/80 mmHg, can meaningfully shrink the regurgitant fraction. The longitudinal data from the UK Biobank link elevated blood pressure to incident MR, so blood pressure control is also primary prevention against developing MR in the first place.

Other valve problems sometimes coexist, particularly aortic stenosis in older patients. Combined surgery for severe MR and severe aortic stenosis is a defined operation with its own risk profile and is typically handled by the same valve team that does single-valve procedures.

What New Mitral Regurgitation Treatments Are Emerging?

The most active areas in 2026 are next-generation transcatheter edge-to-edge repair devices (PASCAL Precision, AbbVie clip iterations), transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR, Evoque, Sapien M3, Tendyne, Intrepid), and refined patient-selection criteria from long-term COAPT follow-up. TMVR is likely to become a routine option in the next 3–5 years for patients who are not surgical candidates and not optimal for TEER.

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is the most significant frontier. Unlike TEER, which approximates leaflets, TMVR places a complete prosthetic valve via catheter, typically through a transapical or transseptal approach. The Evoque, Sapien M3, Tendyne, and Intrepid systems are all in advanced clinical trials. Early results show high procedural success but ongoing challenges with paravalvular leak and LV outflow tract obstruction. The technology is closing the gap with surgical replacement for high-risk patients quickly.

PASCAL Precision and next-generation MitraClip devices have expanded the range of leaflet pathologies that can be addressed with TEER. The CLASP IID trial demonstrated non-inferiority of PASCAL to MitraClip in primary MR. Both devices continue to evolve.

Better patient-selection tools are emerging from the long-term COAPT follow-up data. The “proportionate versus disproportionate” framework (introduced by Grayburn) helps explain why COAPT and MITRA-FR produced different results in similar patients: TEER helps secondary MR patients whose regurgitant volume is disproportionate to their ventricular volume, but not patients whose MR is proportionate to advanced LV dilation. This framework is now part of the conversation in every secondary-MR case.

Cardiac MRI for accurate regurgitant volume quantification is increasingly part of the preoperative workup at high-volume centers. Strain echocardiography for earlier detection of subclinical LV dysfunction is also gaining ground, helping us catch primary MR patients earlier in the disease course.

How Should You Approach Treatment Decisions?

Decision-making in MR requires understanding your specific anatomy (primary vs secondary, leaflet involvement, chordal vs annular pathology), your symptoms, your LV function, your surgical risk, and your goals. The decision should be made in partnership with a heart valve team, not by a single physician in isolation.

The most important early step is making sure the diagnosis is right. MR is a complex echocardiographic diagnosis, and small differences in how the study is performed can produce meaningfully different severity grades. A second-opinion echo at a high-volume center is worth pursuing if there is any doubt about severity, particularly before a major intervention.

The second step is referral to a multidisciplinary heart valve team for severe MR. The team should include a cardiologist who specializes in valve disease, a cardiac surgeon who performs high volumes of mitral repair, an interventional cardiologist who performs TEER, and an imaging cardiologist. The team reviews the anatomy together and offers an integrated recommendation of surgery, MitraClip, TMVR, or continued surveillance.

Surgical risk scoring (STS or EuroSCORE) helps anchor the conversation about operative versus transcatheter options. A young, otherwise healthy patient with primary MR is a clear surgical-repair candidate. An 85-year-old with significant comorbidities is typically a TEER candidate. The gray zone in between is where heart team discussion matters most.

Patient preferences carry significant weight in close calls. Recovery time, anticoagulation tolerance, and individual goals all enter the decision. I tell patients to choose the option they will be most comfortable with for the next 10 years, not just the one with the best short-term recovery.

Mitral Regurgitation: The Bottom Line

Mitral regurgitation is one of the most common valve diseases, and modern treatment is excellent. Mild and moderate MR are usually watched. Severe MR with any of the four key triggers (symptoms, LVEF below 60%, LV end-systolic diameter at 40 mm or above, or new atrial fibrillation or pulmonary hypertension) is referred to a heart valve team. Surgical repair is the gold standard for primary MR when feasible. MitraClip is transformative for high-surgical-risk patients and for selected secondary MR based on COAPT.

If you have been told you have mitral regurgitation, the most important next steps are to clarify whether it is primary or secondary, to grade the severity rigorously, and, if severe, to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary heart valve team. Aggressive blood pressure control to below 130/80 mmHg, treatment of atrial fibrillation, and optimization of heart failure therapy all play important roles regardless of which intervention pathway you eventually choose.

Frequently Asked Questions About Mitral Regurgitation

What does it mean if my doctor says I have a “trace” or “trivial” leak?

Trace or trivial mitral regurgitation is a tiny amount of backflow that is essentially physiologic. It is found in most healthy adults on a sensitive echocardiogram. It does not require treatment, monitoring is rarely needed, and it does not progress in most people. Hearing this finding can feel alarming, but in clinical terms it is normal.

Is mitral valve prolapse the same as mitral regurgitation?

Not exactly. Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) describes a structural finding, the valve leaflets bulge back into the atrium when the heart contracts. Many people with MVP have no leak at all; some develop mild MR; a smaller subset progress to severe MR over years. MVP is common (about 2% of US adults). Most patients with MVP live normal lives and never need intervention.

Can mitral regurgitation be treated without surgery?

For mild and moderate MR, yes, surveillance and treatment of contributing factors like high blood pressure is usually all that is needed. For severe symptomatic MR, the leak itself does not respond to medication. Surgical repair, replacement, or transcatheter procedures like the MitraClip are the only ways to actually fix the leak. Medical therapy (ACE/ARB, beta-blocker, diuretic) is supportive but not curative.

What is the MitraClip, and who is a candidate?

The MitraClip is a small device delivered through a catheter that clips the front and back leaflets of the mitral valve together at the leak, reducing the size of the regurgitant orifice. It is FDA-approved for patients with severe MR who are at high surgical risk and for selected patients with secondary MR due to heart failure (based on the COAPT trial). It does not eliminate MR completely but typically reduces it by one or two grades. Recovery is days, not weeks.

Will I need to take blood thinners after mitral valve surgery?

It depends on the procedure. After mitral valve repair, most patients take anticoagulation for 3 months. After bioprosthetic replacement, anticoagulation for 3–6 months. After mechanical valve replacement, lifelong warfarin is required, DOACs are not approved for mechanical valves. If atrial fibrillation is also present, anticoagulation may need to be lifelong regardless of valve type.

Is mitral valve repair better than replacement?

In primary MR, yes, when feasible. Repair preserves your own valve, has lower long-term mortality, lower risk of infection, and typically avoids the need for lifelong anticoagulation. Modern centers achieve repair rates above 95% for degenerative MR. Replacement is reserved for valves that cannot be repaired, such as those destroyed by endocarditis or with extensive rheumatic damage.

What is the difference between primary and secondary mitral regurgitation?

Primary (degenerative) MR is a problem with the valve itself, most often mitral valve prolapse, sometimes torn chords or endocarditis. The valve needs repair or replacement. Secondary (functional) MR is a problem with the heart muscle around the valve, usually heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The valve looks normal but is pulled open because the ventricle has dilated. Treating secondary MR often involves treating the underlying heart failure first.

How often should I have echocardiograms if I have mitral regurgitation?

Every 3–5 years for mild MR with no other findings. Every 1–2 years for moderate MR. Every 6–12 months for asymptomatic severe MR. After any intervention (repair, replacement, MitraClip), echocardiograms are typically annual for life.

References

1. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2021;77(4):e25-e197.

2. O’Gara PT, Mack MJ. Secondary Mitral Regurgitation. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;383(15):1458-1467.

3. Stone GW, Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, et al. Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Patients with Heart Failure (COAPT). New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379(24):2307-2318.

4. Obadia JF, Messika-Zeitoun D, Leurent G, et al. Percutaneous Repair or Medical Treatment for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation (MITRA-FR). New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379(24):2297-2306.

5. Grayburn PA, Sannino A, Packer M. Proportionate and Disproportionate Functional Mitral Regurgitation: A New Conceptual Framework. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;12(4):353-362.

6. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. European Heart Journal. 2022;43(7):561-632.

7. Lim DS, Smith RL, Gillam LD, et al. Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation (CLASP IID). JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2022.

8. Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al. Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic-Valve and Mitral-Valve Replacement. New England Journal of Medicine. 2017;377(19):1847-1857.

9. Davidson LJ, Davidson CJ. Transcatheter Treatment of Valvular Heart Disease: A Review. JAMA. 2021;325(24):2480-2494.

10. Rahimi K, Mohseni H, Otto CM, et al. Elevated Blood Pressure and Risk of Mitral Regurgitation: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of 5.5 Million United Kingdom Adults. PLoS Medicine. 2017;14(10):e1002404.