PP443 Effectiveness And Safety Of Transcatheter Therapy Interventions Devices For Treatment Of Tricuspid Regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is defined as incompetence of the tricuspid valve (TV), which produces the movement of blood flow from the right ventricle (RV) to the right atrium during systole. Pathological TR is functional in nearly 80–90 percent of cases, secondary to volume and/or pressure overload in the RV. Surgical intervention of TR is associated with mortality rates of 10 percent. Transcatheter therapy interventions (TTI) can be an alternative for severe TR. The aim of this study is to assess effectiveness and safety of TTI. Methods A systematic review was carried out. The scientific literature search was performed in major medical databases. Studies analyzing the efficacy and safety of the devices were included. Outcomes related with mortality rates, TR volume reduction, echocardiographic findings and adverse events were analyzed. The methodological quality of the studies was analyzed with the Canadian Institute of Health Economics Quality Appraisal Checklist. Results Nine studies comprising 557 patients were included (two first-in-human studies, one retrospective, five single arm prospective studies and one international registry). The studies were small with short follow up. The outcome of procedural success ranged from 80 to 100 percent. Mortality rates at 30 days were lower than 5 percent. Improvements in reduction of TR, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), heart failure symptoms or quality of life scores were observed in all studies. Conclusions TTI for moderate-severe TR show significant reduction of annulus dimension, improvements in heart failure symptoms and quality of life, which are maintained in mid-term follow up. TTI present lower rates of major serious adverse events. No differences were observed between different TTI devices in terms of procedural success, mortality or safety. Randomized studies comparing TTI with optimal medical therapy are needed to confirm the preliminary clinical impact in patients with severe TR, and define aspects such as patient selection, risk factors associated with procedural success or mortality rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".