Aims: To define the hitherto unknown aetiology/mechanism distributions of mitral regurgitation (MR) in the community and the linked clinical characteristics/outcomes. Methods and results: We identified all isolated, moderate/severe MR diagnosed in our community (Olmsted County, MN, USA) between 2000 and 2010 and classified MR aetiology/mechanisms. Eligible patients (n = 727) were 73 ± 18 years, 51% females, with ejection fraction (EF) 49 ± 17%. MR was functional (FMR) in 65%, organic (OMR) in 32% and 2% mixed. Functional MR was linked to left ventricular remodelling (FMR-v) 38% and isolated atrial dilatation (FMR-a) 27%. At diagnosis FMR-v vs. FMR-a, vs. OMR displayed profound differences (all P < 0.0001) in age (73 ± 14, 80 ± 10, 68 ± 21years), male-sex (59, 33, 51%), atrial-fibrillation (28, 54, 13%), EF (33 ± 14, 57 ± 11, 61 ± 10%), and regurgitant-volume (38 ± 13, 37 ± 11, 51 ± 24 mL/beat). Dominant MR mechanism was Type I (normal valve-movement) 38%, Type II (excessive valve-movement) 25%, Type IIIa (diastolic movement-restriction) 3%, and Type IIIb (systolic movement-restriction) 34%. Outcomes were mediocre with excess-mortality vs. general-population in FMR-v [risk ratio 3.45 (2.98–3.99), P < 0.0001] but also FMR-a [risk ratio 1.88 (1.52–2.25), P < 0.0001] and OMR [risk ratio 1.83 (1.50–2.22), P < 0.0001]. Heart failure was frequent, particularly in FMR-v (5-year 83 ± 3% vs. 59 ± 4% FMR-a, 40 ± 3% OMR, P < 0.0001). Mitral surgery during patients’ lifetime was performed in 4% of FMR-v, 3% of FMR-a, and 37% of OMR. Conclusion: Moderate/severe isolated MR in the community displays considerable aetiology/mechanism heterogeneity. Functional MR dominates, mostly FMR-v but FMR-a is frequent and degenerative MR dominates OMR. Outcomes are mediocre with excess-mortality particularly with FMR-v but FMR-a, despite normal EF incurs notable excess-mortality and frequent heart failure. Pervasive undertreatment warrants clinical trials of therapies tailored to specific MR cause/mechanisms.

Background: The benefits of aerobic exercise are well-studied; there is no consensus on the association between resistance training and major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address this issue. Design and methods: We searched for randomized trials and cohort studies that evaluated the association between resistance training and mortality and cardiovascular events. Two investigators screened the identified abstracts and full-texts independently and in duplicate. Cochrane tools were used to assess the risk of bias. We calculated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals using random effect models. Results: From the 1430 studies identified, 11 (one randomized trial and 10 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, totaling 370,256 participants with mean follow-up of 8.85 years. The meta-analysis showed that, compared with no exercise, resistance training was associated with 21% (hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)), 0.79 (0.69–0.91)) and 40% (hazard ratio (95% CI), 0.60 (0.49–0.72)) lower all-cause mortality alone and when combined with aerobic exercise, respectively. Furthermore, resistance training had a borderline association with lower cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio (95% CI), 0.83 (0.67–1.03)). In addition, resistance training showed no significant association with cancer mortality. Risk of bias was low to intermediate in the included studies. One cohort study looked at the effect of resistance training on coronary heart disease events in men and found a 23% risk reduction (risk ratio, 0.77, CI: 0.61–0.98). Conclusion: Resistance training is associated with lower mortality and appears to have an additive effect when combined with aerobic exercise. There are insufficient data to determine the potential beneficial effect of resistance training on non-fatal events or the effect of substituting aerobic exercise with resistance training.