Bartko, P E

Abstract Background The impact of treatment for tricuspid regurgitation (TR) across different levels of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains uncertain. Purpose This study aimed to compare the outcomes of surgical and transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions (TTVI) to conservative (medical) management across all LVEF categories. Methods Patients with severe isolated TR from the TRIGISTRY, a multicenter international registry, were categorized based on LVEF (preserved EF-pEF:≥50%, mildly reduced EF-mrEF:41–49%, and reduced EF-rEF:≤40%). We assessed the impact of treatment modality and procedural success, defined as residual TR ≤mild-to-moderate, on two-year survival within each LVEF category. Results Among 2,384 patients, 1,383 had pEF, 400 had mrEF, and 601 had rEF. Compared to conservative management, surgery (P<0.0005) and TTVI (P<0.0001) were associated with a survival benefit in patients with pEF. No significant survival advantage was observed in patients with mrEF (P=0.28 for both), nor in those with rEF (P=0.76 and P=0.22 respectively). Similar results were obtained when surgical and transcatheter interventions were grouped together (P<0.0001, P=0.17 and P=0.29 in patients with pEF, mrEF and rEF respectively). Patients with significant residual TR after TTVI exhibited a trend toward worse survival compared to those managed conservatively across all LVEF categories (P=0.47, P=0.33, and P=0.008 respectively)(Figure 1). Conclusion Tricuspid valve intervention, whether surgical or transcatheter-based, was associated with improved survival in patients with preserved LVEF but not in those with mildly reduced or reduced LVEF. Residual TR remained a significant prognostic factor across the entire LVEF spectrum. These findings highlight the need for careful patient selection when considering tricuspid interventions in individuals with reduced LVEF.Figure 1

Abstract Background While tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is predominantly functional, it can arise from various cardiac conditions. This study aimed to evaluate whether the benefits of tricuspid valve intervention, compared to conservative management, differ based on the underlying etiology. Methods In the TRIGISTRY international cohort, which includes consecutive patients with severe isolated functional TR across 33 centers in 10 countries, we compared mortality rates at 2 years between patients who underwent a tricuspid valve intervention (surgical or transcatheter) versus conservative management according to TR etiology. Patients were classified into three groups: (1) Isolated TR (ITR), defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >60%, systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) <50 mmHg, and no prior left-heart intervention (LHI); (2) LHI-TR, comprising patients with a history of LHI; and (3) Undetermined TR (UTR), which included those who did not meet the criteria for ITR or LHI, as well as those with missing sPAP data. Given previous findings indicating that intervention provided no survival benefit for patients with a high TRI-SCORE, the present analysis was restricted to individuals with low to intermediate TRI-SCORE (≤5). Survival outcomes between groups were compared using restricted mean survival time (RMST). Results A total of 1,552 patients (72±13 years; 56% female) with severe functional TR and a low (48%) or intermediate (52%) TRI-SCORE were included. Of these, 772 (50%) underwent an intervention, while 780 (50%) were conservatively managed. TR was classified as ITR in 201 patients (13%), LHI in 395 (25%), and UTR in 956 (62%). Overall, patients with ITR exhibited the lowest comorbidity burden, whereas those with UTR had the highest. After adjusting for comorbidities and TRI-SCORE, a survival benefit of a tricuspid valve intervention was observed in patients with ITR (survival estimate: 0.17, 95% CI [0.009, 0.32], P=0.039) and, to a lesser extent, in patients with UTR (survival estimate: 0.09, 95% CI [0.0, 0.184], P=0.048), but not in those with prior LHI (survival estimate: 0.06, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.2], P=0.4). Similar results were found when excluding patients with moderate or greater residual TR after intervention. Conclusion In TRIGISTRY, patients with ITR appeared to derive the greatest benefit from tricuspid valve intervention, followed to a lesser extent by those with UTR, while no benefit was observed in patients with prior LHI. However, the potential influence of unaccounted confounders cannot be excluded, and further studies are needed to better identify patients’ subsets that may derive the most benefit from a tricuspid valve intervention.