Comparative analysis of MitraClip/TriClip and PASCAL in transcatheter tricuspid valve repair for tricuspid regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The edge-to-edge transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (TTVR) has emerged as a promising technique for the treatment of tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Despite its potential, comparative data on the performance of the novel edge-to-edge devices-MitraClip, PASCAL, and TriClip-remain controversial. In this study, we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these devices in treating TR. METHODS: Five databases were systematically searched up to May 2023, with an updated search conducted in May 2024. Only original studies were included in the analysis and were critically evaluated using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational cohort studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool for randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: The database search yielded 2239 studies, out of which 21 studies were included in the final analysis. These studies encompassed a total of 2178 patients who underwent TTVR using either the MitraClip, TriClip, or PASCAL devices. The risk of bias across these studies ranged from moderate to high. No significant differences were found among the three devices in terms of effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) and tricuspid regurgitant volume. However, TriClip demonstrated statistically superior efficacy in reducing vena contracta compared to both MitraClip and PASCAL (P < 0.01) [TriClip: (MD = -7.4; 95% CI: -9.24, -5.56), MitraClip: (MD = -4.04; 95% CI: -5.03, -3.05), and PASCAL: (MD = -6.56; 95% CI: -7.76, -5.35)]. The procedural success rates and incidence of single leaflet device attachment (SLDA) were similar across all devices. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in mortality, stroke rates, or major bleeding events among the three devices. CONCLUSION: The TriClip outperforms the MitraClip and PASCAL in reducing vena contracta width, indicating greater effectiveness for severe tricuspid regurgitation. All devices show similar safety profiles and procedural success rates. Further research is needed to confirm these results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.198 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".