Tricuspid Regurgitation: Frequency, Clinical Presentation, Management and Outcome Among Patients with Severe Left-Sided Valvular Heart Disease in Europe. Insights from the ESC-EORP Valvular Heart Disease II Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is commonly observed in patients with severe left-sided valvular heart disease (VHD). This study sought to assess TR frequency, management and outcome in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 6883 patients with severe native left-sided VHD or previous left-sided valvular intervention enrolled in the EURObservational Research Programme prospective VHD II survey, moderate or severe TR was very frequent in patients with severe mitral VHD (30% when mitral stenosis, 36% when mitral regurgitation [MR]), especially in patients with secondary MR (46%), and rare in patients with severe aortic VHD (4% when aortic stenosis, 3% when aortic regurgitation). An increase in TR grade was associated with a more severe clinical presentation and a poorer 6-month survival (p < 0.0001). Rates of concomitant tricuspid valve (TV) intervention at the time of left-sided heart valve surgery were high at the time of mitral valve surgery (50% when mitral stenosis, 41% when MR). Concordance between class I indications (patients with severe TR) for concomitant TV surgery at the time of left-sided valvular heart surgery according to guidelines and real-practice decision-making was very good (88% overall, 95% in patients operated on for MR). CONCLUSION: In this large international prospective survey among patients with severe left-sided VHD, moderate/severe TR was frequent in patients with mitral valve disease and was associated with a poorer outcome as TR grade increased. In patients with severe TR, compliance to guidelines for class I indications for concomitant TV surgery at the time of left-sided heart valve surgery was very good.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".