It is impossible to even guess what your timeframe would be likely without a knowledge of your current regurgitation, valve thickening, EF, and chamber sizes, as well as those going a few years back. With that, it would be - just a guess. The problem is that it is still an inexact science as to exactly when someone should best go in for surgery.
The informal consensus in these forums seems to be to go early in the game, before permanent damage is done. But it's hard for anyone, including your cardiologist to determine at just what point that might happen. There are thresholds at which it is definitely necessary to go for surgery, but it is not at all cut-and-dried as to when the best time to go is for each individual.
Untreated valve conditions don't improve over time. Depending on the individual situation, they may remain stable for many years, even outliving their owners. In general, however, they become worse over time. The decline tends to accelerate as the condition becomes more severe, especially when calcification is involved. This appears emphatically true of the aortic valve, but also follows with the mitral.
The Valve Disease Progression Axiom is: "The worse it gets, the faster it gets worse." (my opinon...RDH)
There is little question that pregnancy does stress your heart and your valves, but the effect it has on an existing valve condition varies greatly by individual. It would be foolish to think it would have no effect, if the valve condition is past its mildest form, yet it does seem negligible in some. There is speculation that there may be hormonal changes that benefit and protect the heart somewhat during pregnancy, but I have not seen an absolute statement to that effect. It would not be surprising to find it to be true in some women.
I do suspect that the further along the valve issue is, the greater the impact a pregnancy would have.
As far as surgery on a pregnant patient, I think that doctors would prefer almost any other option than putting a pregnant woman on bypass.
Best wishes,
