Tricuspid Valve Intervention at the Time of Pulmonary Valve Replacement in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common finding in adults with congenital heart disease referred for pulmonary valve replacement (PVR). However, indications for combined valve surgery remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate early results of concomitant tricuspid valve intervention (TVI) at the time of PVR. Methods and Results Observational studies comparing TVI+PVR and isolated PVR were identified by a systematic search of published research. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was performed, comparing outcomes between the 2 groups. Six studies involving 749 patients (TVI+PVR, 278 patients; PVR, 471 patients) met the eligibility criteria. In the pooled analysis, both TVI+PVR and PVR reduced TR grade, pulmonary regurgitation grade, right ventricular end‐diastolic volume, and right ventricular end‐systolic volumes. TVI+PVR, but not PVR, was associated with a decrease in tricuspid valve annulus size (mean difference, −6.43 mm, 95% CI, −10.59 to −2.27; P =0.010). Furthermore, TVI+PVR was associated with a larger reduction in TR grade compared with PVR (mean difference, −0.40; 95% CI, −0.75 to −0.05; P =0.031). No evidence could be established for an effect of either treatment on right ventricular ejection fraction or echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular dilatation and dysfunction. There was no evidence for a difference in hospital mortality or reoperation for TR. Conclusions While both strategies are effective in reducing TR and right ventricular volumes, routine TVI+PVR can reduce TR grade to a larger extent than isolated PVR. Further studies are needed to identify the subgroups of patients who might benefit most from combined valve surgery.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".