Your plan sounds excellent, excepting that I would also ask them for the complete editions of the earlier echoes. They should have them in their files, and the more information you have, the better you can plot your heart's progression, if any.
Trivial regurgitation comes and goes all the time in different valves in most hearts, and is generally considered insignificant, so I wouldn't let that concern you. It may be there one reading, and gone on a reading a month later. Then it may show up on another valve for awhile. The heart is a dynamic and muscular organ, and small, temporary shifts in shape, size, or even effort can momentarily deform the valve opening enough to cause a tiny, but detectable regurgitation. The techs report it, just to show that they saw it and were paying attention, but it is labeled trivial because it is not of any functional importance.
As far as the EF numbers, Nia, I'm glad you did bring it up. It's a common human failing to want to go with the familiar. I have had that EF range locked in my brain for a long while, and have used it with confidence, based on my original fiind of it.
However, things change. "Knowledge," such as a definitive normal range for ejection fractions, is not a reliable, concrete constant, but rather evolves. Especially in this field. It's a great temptation to find an answer, put a stake in the ground, say that "this is so," and stick with it, no matter what. But in truth, to try to keep up with what's going on in valve-related information, we have to have intellectual feet of clay. Health information rumbles through the knowledge field like a series of small earthquakes, always requiring you to reexamine afterwards which side of the road is the stable ground.
Your concern made me revisit this information, and it was apparently time for it. What I was touting appears to be old hat now, and I thank you for unintentionally prodding me to update it.
I do suspect that the higher EFs that are now listed as normal are probably related to an increase in the number of fitness buffs and practitioners of extreme sports, such as long-distance runners and cyclists, rather than an acceptance of those higher EFs as ordinary in the average run of people, though. Atheletic people sometimes have heart enlargement because of the massive amount of exercise involved (sometimes referred to as "athelete's heart"), as well as the increased ejection fractions that go with it.
I think the significance of the higher EFs could most reasonably be considered in relation to both overall athleticism and other findings within the heart. If you are of average or slightly better fitness, but have a mild to moderate valve leak, the leak should be suspected of causing any enlargement and higher EF, as I believe it takes a high level of fitness activity in most people to push an EF above 65% or so.
The higher EFs are indicative of the heart coping with a situation. The distinction is whether it is a high level of exercise demanding more oxygen in the body (and thus increased pumping), if the demand is caused by needing to pump harder through a narrowed opening (stenosis), or if there is a regurgitation that allows the pumped blood to leak back into the pumping chamber, undermining its efforts.
Best wishes,