MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415449968 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.105427

Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement in the Presence of Pacemaker Lead–Related Tricuspid Regurgitation and Complex Anatomy

2025· article· en· W4415449968 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandru Patrascu, Mohammed Alkasab, Thomas Attumalil, Bryan Traynor, Kendra Derry, Sami Alnasser, Andrew C.T. Ha, Neil Fam

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegurgitation (circulation)Tricuspid valveValve replacementTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyHeart catheterizationTricuspid stenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is increasingly recognized, necessitating heart team assessment. Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) is emerging as an option for inoperable patients with TR, requiring decisions on right ventricular lead management. CASE SUMMARY: A 76-year-old woman developed moderate to severe TR after pacemaker implantation, which was exacerbated by a second RV lead 8 years later, leading to torrential TR and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations. TR persisted despite lead extraction, and multimodality imaging revealed complex valve anatomy. TTVR was performed, yielding excellent echocardiographic results and improved quality of life. DISCUSSION: CIED and TR can coexist, obscuring the distinction between lead-related and lead-associated TR because of right ventricular remodeling. The heart team should determine lead management during transcatheter procedures. TTVR is a valuable option for massive gaps, severe tethering, or complex anatomy. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Collaborative management with electrophysiology as part of the extended heart team is key in CIED-related TR cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207