Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common valvular heart disease with unsatisfactory medical therapeutics and high surgical mortality. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) in high-risk patients with severe TR. METHODS: This was a compassionate multicentre study. Between September 2018 and November 2019, 46 patients with TR who were not suitable for surgery received compassionate TTVR under general anaesthesia and the guidance of trans-oesophageal echocardiography and fluoroscopy in four institutions. Access to the tricuspid valve was obtained via a minimally invasive thoracotomy and transatrial approach. Patients' data at baseline, before discharge, 30 days and 6 months after the procedure were collected. RESULTS: All patients had severe TR with vena contracta width of 12.6 (11.0, 14.5) mm. Procedural success (97.8%) was achieved in all but one case with right ventricle perforation. The procedural time was 150.0 (118.8, 180.0) min. Intensive care unit time was 2.0 (1.0, 4.0) days. 6-month mortality was 17.4%. Device migration occurred in one patient (2.4%) during follow-up. Transthoracic echocardiography at 6 months after operation showed TR was significantly reduced (none/trivial in 33, mild in 4 and moderate in 1) and the primary safety end point was achieved in 38 cases (82.6%). Patients suffered from peripheral oedema and ascites decreased from 100.0% and 47.8% at baseline to 2.6% and 0.0% at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed TTVR was feasible, safe and with low complication rates in patients with severe TR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".