Benefit of isolated surgical valve repair or replacement for functional tricuspid regurgitation and long-term outcomes stratified by the TRI-SCORE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Severe tricuspid regurgitation is associated with increased mortality rates, but benefit of its correction and ideal timing are not clearly determined. This study aimed to identify patient subsets who might benefit from the surgery. METHODS: In TRIGISTRY, an international cohort study of consecutive patients with severe isolated functional tricuspid regurgitation (33 centres, 10 countries), survival rates up to 10 years were compared between patients who underwent isolated tricuspid valve surgery (repair or replacement) and those conservatively managed, overall and according to TRI-SCORE category (low: ≤3, intermediate: 4-5, and high: ≥6). RESULTS: One thousand and two hundred seventeen were managed conservatively, and 551 underwent isolated tricuspid valve surgery (200 repairs and 351 replacements). TRI-SCORE distribution was 33% low, 32% intermediate, and 35% high. At 10 years, survival rates were similar between surgical and conservative management [41% vs. 36%; hazard ratio (HR) .97; 95% confidence interval (CI) .88-1.08, P = .57]. Surgery improved survival compared with conservative management in the low TRI-SCORE category (72% vs. 44%; HR .27; 95% CI .20-.37, P < .0001), but not in the intermediate (36% vs. 37%; HR 1.17; 95%CI .98-1.40, P = .09) or high categories (20% vs. 24%; HR 1.06; 95% CI .91-1.25, P = .45). Both repair and replacement improved survival in the low TRI-SCORE category (84% and 61% vs. 44%; HR .11; 95% CI .06-.19, P < .0001, and HR .65; 95% CI .47-.90, P = .009). Repair showed benefit in the intermediate category (59% vs. 37%; HR .49; 95% CI .35-.68, P < .0001) while replacement was possibly harmful (25% vs. 37%; HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.18-1.72, P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: Higher survival rates were observed with repair than replacement and benefit of intervention declined as TRI-SCORE increased with no benefit of any type of surgery in the high TRI-SCORE category. These results emphasize the importance of timely intervention and patient selection to achieve the best outcomes and the need for randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".