Russo, Giulio

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is now indicated across all risk categories of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and has been proposed as first line option for the majority of patients >74 years old. However, median age of patients enrolled in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement low-risk trials is 74 years and transcatheter aortic valve replacement has never been systematically investigated in young low risk patients. Although the long-term data in surgical aortic valve replacement in young patients (age <75) are well known, such data remain lacking in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In the absence of clear guideline recommendations in patients with challenging anatomies (eg, hostile calcium, bicuspid), it is important to know the potential advantages and disadvantages of each treatment and to consider how they might integrate with each other in the lifetime management of such patients. In this review, we discuss current outstanding issues on the management of severe aortic stenosis from a lifetime management perspective, particularly in terms of initial intervention and future reinterventions.