Citations

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.

Abstract Aims Heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) ejection fraction are prevalent, yet frequently underdiagnosed syndromes associated with high morbidity and mortality, impaired quality of life, and escalating healthcare expenditures. Although guideline-directed medications like SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular death, their use remains limited and substantial residual risk persists. This trial aims to evaluate the safety and performance of a novel left-atrium-to-coronary-sinus shunt (Edwards APTURE transcatheter shunt system) in HFpEF and HFmrEF patients. Methods ALT-FLOW II is a prospective multi-centre, randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded (patient and assessor) trial. Approximately 100 symptomatic HF patients aged ≥18 years with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% and exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥25 mm Hg with a PCWP to right atrial pressure gradient ≥8 mm Hg will be randomized 1:1 to the APTURE shunt vs sham control. Key exclusion criteria include severe HF, significant valvular disease, and more than mild right ventricular dysfunction. The primary endpoints are the safety of the APTURE device at 30 days and change in workload-corrected PCWP normalized to bodyweight at 6 months. Secondary endpoints include changes in patient-reported outcomes, and hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters through 5 years. The trial will also explore the impact of the device on short-term cardiac remodelling and intra-cardiac flow patterns using multi-modality imaging. Conclusions The ALT-FLOW II trial will evaluate the safety and performance of the APTURE system in symptomatic HFpEF and HFmrEF patients with elevated left atrial pressure.

ABSTRACT Aims The impact of treatment for tricuspid regurgitation (TR) across different levels of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of surgical and transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions (TTVI) to conservative (medical) management across LVEF categories. Methods and results Patients with severe isolated TR from the TRIGISTRY, a multicentre international registry, were categorized based on LVEF (preserved ejection fraction [pEF]: ≥50%, mildly reduced ejection fraction [mrEF]: 41–49%, and reduced ejection fraction [rEF]: ≤40%). We assessed the impact of treatment modality and procedural success (mild-to-moderate or lower residual TR) on 2-year survival within each LVEF category. Among 2384 patients, 1383 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 (p < 0.0001, p = 0.17 and p = 0.29 in patients with pEF, mrEF and rEF, respectively). Patients with 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 in pEF, mrEF and rEF, respectively). Conclusions Transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention, whether surgical or transcatheter-based, was associated with improved survival in patients with pEF but not in those with mrEF or rEF. Residual TR remained a significant prognostic factor across the entire LVEF spectrum. These findings highlight the need for careful patient selection when considering TTVI in individuals with rEF.

Abstract Background and Aims The TRISCEND II trial demonstrated superior clinical benefits for patients with ≥severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) treated with the EVOQUE transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) system plus medical therapy vs medical therapy alone. This work reports 1-year and 18-month outcomes in patients stratified by baseline TR severity. Methods The multicentre, prospective TRISCEND II trial enrolled 400 patients with symptomatic, ≥severe TR, and randomized 2:1 to TTVR (n = 267) or control (n = 133). In a post hoc analysis, patients were stratified into severe TR (n = 172) and massive/torrential TR (n = 220) cohorts. Clinical and quality-of-life outcomes were reported at 1 year, with Kaplan–Meier estimates for all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization assessed at 18 months. Study oversight included an independent echocardiographic core laboratory, clinical events committee, and data safety monitoring board. Results One year after TTVR, TR was ≤mild in 95.2% of severe TR and 95.3% of massive/torrential TR patients. The primary safety and effectiveness endpoint (win ratio) favoured TTVR over control regardless of baseline TR severity: severe {1.64 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11, 2.43]} and massive/torrential [2.20 (1.55, 3.14)]. At 18 months, TTVR patients had similar mortality to controls [rate difference: severe 0.2% (−11.6, 11.9), massive/torrential −5.8% (−17.6, 6.0)], whereas HF hospitalization rates favoured TTVR in the massive/torrential cohort [vs control, severe 9.8% (−3.0, 22.7), massive/torrential -15.2% (−28.9, −1.5)]. Conclusions Patients with ≥severe TR benefit from TTVR, experiencing improvements in TR severity, functional capacity, and quality of life regardless of baseline TR severity, with a signal for greater benefit in patients with more advanced disease.

Abstract Worldwide, valvular heart disease (VHD) is a common cause of hospitalization for acute heart failure. In acute heart failure caused by VHD, symptoms result from rapid haemodynamic changes and subsequent decline in cardiac function, and if left untreated, leads to acute decompensation and cardiogenic shock. Current evidence remains scarce and recommendations regarding the management of acute heart failure caused by VHD are lacking in most recent international guidelines. Herein, we review the management of acute heart failure caused by VHD with a focus on transcatheter therapies and describe currently available evidence based on a systematic literature search on the following valve pathologies: (i) aortic stenosis, (ii) aortic regurgitation, (iii) mitral regurgitation, and (iv) mitral stenosis. Articles reporting outcomes following urgent or emergent valve intervention in the setting of cardiogenic shock or acute heart failure were considered. After screening a total of 2234 articles, 76 published between 1994 and 2023 were included in subsequent analysis. Based on available evidence, proposed treatment algorithms to guide optimal management of acute heart failure caused by VHD were created. As the number of patients presenting with acute heart failure caused by VHD continues to rise and outcomes following transcatheter valve interventions continue to improve, it is inevitable that minimally invasive options will play an increasingly important role in the acute setting, especially given these patients are at an increased operative risk. This review aims to present an organized approach to the complex management and interventional treatment of patients with acute heart failure caused by VHD.

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.

Right ventricular pressure-volume (PV) analysis characterizes ventricular systolic and diastolic properties independent of loading conditions like volume status and afterload. While long-considered the gold-standard method for quantifying myocardial chamber performance, it was traditionally only performed in highly specialized research settings. With recent advances in catheter technology and more sophisticated approaches to analyze PV data, it is now more commonly used in a variety of clinical and research settings. Herein, we review the basic techniques for PV loop measurement, analysis, and interpretation with the aim of providing readers with a deeper understanding of the strengths and limitations of PV analysis. In the second half of the review, we detail key scenarios in which right ventricular PV analysis has influenced our understanding of clinically relevant topics and where the technique can be applied to resolve additional areas of uncertainty. All told, PV analysis has an important role in advancing our understanding of right ventricular physiology and its contribution to cardiovascular function in health and disease.