Selton‐Suty, Christine

Abstract Background and Aims Severe tricuspid regurgitation is associated with increased mortality rates, but benefit of its correction and ideal timing are not clearly determined. This study aimed to identify patient subsets who might benefit from the surgery. Methods In TRIGISTRY, an international cohort study of consecutive patients with severe isolated functional tricuspid regurgitation (33 centres, 10 countries), survival rates up to 10 years were compared between patients who underwent isolated tricuspid valve surgery (repair or replacement) and those conservatively managed, overall and according to TRI-SCORE category (low: ≤3, intermediate: 4–5, and high: ≥6). Results One thousand and two hundred seventeen were managed conservatively, and 551 underwent isolated tricuspid valve surgery (200 repairs and 351 replacements). TRI-SCORE distribution was 33% low, 32% intermediate, and 35% high. At 10 years, survival rates were similar between surgical and conservative management [41% vs. 36%; hazard ratio (HR) .97; 95% confidence interval (CI) .88–1.08, P = .57]. Surgery improved survival compared with conservative management in the low TRI-SCORE category (72% vs. 44%; HR .27; 95% CI .20–.37, P < .0001), but not in the intermediate (36% vs. 37%; HR 1.17; 95%CI .98–1.40, P = .09) or high categories (20% vs. 24%; HR 1.06; 95% CI .91–1.25, P = .45). Both repair and replacement improved survival in the low TRI-SCORE category (84% and 61% vs. 44%; HR .11; 95% CI .06–.19, P < .0001, and HR .65; 95% CI .47–.90, P = .009). Repair showed benefit in the intermediate category (59% vs. 37%; HR .49; 95% CI .35–.68, P < .0001) while replacement was possibly harmful (25% vs. 37%; HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.18–1.72, P = .0002). Conclusions Higher survival rates were observed with repair than replacement and benefit of intervention declined as TRI-SCORE increased with no benefit of any type of surgery in the high TRI-SCORE category. These results emphasize the importance of timely intervention and patient selection to achieve the best outcomes and the need for randomized controlled trials.

Abstract Background The 2023 Duke–International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) criteria for infective endocarditis (IE) were introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes. External validation studies are required. Methods We studied consecutive patients with suspected IE referred to the IE team of Amsterdam University Medical Center (from October 2016 to March 2021). An international expert panel independently reviewed case summaries and assigned a final diagnosis of “IE” or “not IE,” which served as the reference standard, to which the “definite” Duke-ISCVID classifications were compared. We also evaluated accuracy when excluding cardiac surgical and pathologic data (“clinical” criteria). Finally, we compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID with the 2000 modified Duke criteria and the 2015 and 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria. Results A total of 595 consecutive patients with suspected IE were included: 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE; 111 (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, and 48 (8%) had a cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than either the modified Duke or 2015 ESC criteria (84.2% vs 74.9% and 80%, respectively; P < .001) without significant loss of specificity. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were similarly sensitive but more specific than the 2023 ESC criteria (94% vs 82%; P < .001). The same pattern was seen for the clinical criteria (excluding surgical/pathologic results). New modifications in the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria related to “major microbiological” and “imaging” criteria had the most impact. Conclusions The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients with suspected IE.

Abstract Background The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria for IE were recently introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes (Table 1). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the new criteria with the 2000 modified Duke criteria, the 2015 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria and a clinically adjudicated reference standard by a panel of international experts on IE.Table 1:Overview of changes in criteria from 2000 modified Duke to 2023 Duke-ISCVIDAdapted from: Fowler et al, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2023 Methods The study population consisted of consecutively enrolled patients suspected to have IE and discussed by the IE team of the Amsterdam University Medical Center (AMC) between October 2016 and March 2021. A panel of international experts on IE assigned a final diagnosis, which served as the reference standard. We compared the definite classification of the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria against this reference standard. We also evaluated accuracy of the new criteria, excluding data obtained from cardiac surgery and pathology (“Clinical Criteria”). Lastly, we quantified the added value of the proposed changes to the criteria, and compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID to previous criteria using the McNemar test. We performed sensitivity analyses in patients who underwent cardiac surgery and patients who underwent TEE. Results 595 patients with suspected IE were included, of whom 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE. 111 patients (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, 48 (8%) had cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than the modified Duke or ESC criteria (84.2 vs 74.9 vs 80%,respectively, p < 0.001 for ISCVID vs ESC criteria) without significant loss of specificity (Table 2). After excluding cardiac surgery/pathology results, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID Clinical Criteria also had significantly better sensitivity than the modified Duke and ESC criteria, again without losing specificity. The changes in the 'major microbiological' and 'imaging' criteria had the most impact (Figure 1). Findings were robust in sensitivity analyses (Table 3). When classifying ‘definite’ and ‘possible’ IE as a positive test, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria had 99% sensitivity compared to the reference standard, but specificity decreased to 21%.Table 2:Diagnostic accuracy of modified Duke, ESC and Duke-ISCVID criteria Sensitivity and specificity are against the reference standard (adjudication panel). The Clinical Criteria classification is the Duke-ISCVID classification when results from surgery or post-mortem studies are not used to determine classification.Table 3:Sensitivity analyses of accuracy of Duke-ISCVID criteria In the Definite + Possible analysis, patients with possible IE according to the Duke-ISCVID criteria were also considered as having IE. All comparisons are against the reference standard (adjudication panel). Conclusion In this cohort, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients suspected of IE. Added value of new Duke-ISCVID criteria compared to modified Duke criteria Each point (red square for sensitivity, blue circle for specificity) provides the diagnostic accuracy measure for the 2000 modified Duke Criteria with addition of a specific change from the Duke-ISCVID criteria. The horizontal bars represent the 95% confidence interval for the point estimate. The top points represent the modified Duke criteria without addition, the bottom points are the complete Duke-ISCVID criteria. Disclosures Larry M. Baddour, MD, Boston Scientific: Advisor/Consultant|Roivant Sciences: Advisor/Consultant Arnold S. Bayer, MD, Akagera Medicines: Grant/Research Support|ContraFect Corporation: Grant/Research Support Emanuele Durante Mangoni, MD,, PhD, Advanz pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Advanz pharma: Grant/Research Support|Advanz pharma: Honoraria|Angelini: Grant/Research Support|Angelini: Honoraria|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech: Board Member|Genentech: Honoraria|Infectopharm: Grant/Research Support|Menarini: Board Member|Menarini: Honoraria|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Board Member|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Honoraria|Roche: Advisor/Consultant|Roche: Board Member|Roche: Honoraria Thomas L. Holland, MD, Aridis: Advisor/Consultant|Basilea Pharmaceutica: Advisor/Consultant|Karius: Advisor/Consultant|Lysovant: Advisor/Consultant Adolf W. Karchmer, MD, Karius: Grant/Research Support|Up To Date: Honoraria Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics; C3J, Armata, Valanbio; Akagera, Aridis, Roche, Astra Zeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen;: Grant/Research Support|Infectious Diseases Society of America: Honoraria|MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck; Medical Biosurfaces; Locus; Affinergy; Contrafect; Karius;: Grant/Research Support|Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny,: Advisor/Consultant|Sepsis diagnostic: Patent pending|UpToDate: Royalties|Valanbio and ArcBio: Stock Options

Abstract Background and aims Benefit of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) correction and timing of intervention are unclear. This study aimed to compare survival rates after surgical or transcatheter intervention to conservative management according to a TR clinical stage as assessed using the TRI-SCORE. Methods A total of 2,413 patients with severe isolated functional TR were enrolled in TRIGISTRY (1217 conservatively managed, 551 isolated tricuspid valve surgery, and 645 transcatheter valve repair). The primary endpoint was survival at 2 years. Results The TRI-SCORE was low (≤3) in 32%, intermediate (4–5) in 33%, and high (≥6) in 35%. A successful correction was achieved in 97% and 65% of patients in the surgical and transcatheter groups, respectively. Survival rates decreased with the TRI-SCORE in the three treatment groups (all P < .0001). In the low TRI-SCORE category, survival rates were higher in the surgical and transcatheter groups than in the conservative management group (93%, 87%, and 79%, respectively, P = .0002). In the intermediate category, no significant difference between groups was observed overall (80%, 71%, and 71%, respectively, P = .13) but benefit of the intervention became significant when the analysis was restricted to patients with successful correction (80%, 81%, and 71%, respectively, P = .009). In the high TRI-SCORE category, survival was not different to conservative management in the surgical and successful repair group (61% and 68% vs 58%, P = .26 and P = .18 respectively). Conclusions Survival progressively decreased with the TRI-SCORE irrespective of treatment modality. Compared to conservative management, an early and successful surgical or transcatheter intervention improved 2-year survival in patients at low and, to a lower extent, intermediate TRI-SCORE, while no benefit was observed in the high TRI-SCORE category.