MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415468895 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.105727

Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement in Torrential Tricuspid Regurgitation With Severe Right Ventricular Dysfunction

2025· article· en· W4415468895 on OpenAlexaff
Jocelyn Chai, Brian Chiang, Gnalini Sathananthan, Robert Boone, Anson Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegurgitation (circulation)Valve replacementTricuspid valveTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid stenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Torrential tricuspid regurgitation (TR) with right heart failure poses management challenges, particularly in patients ineligible for surgery or transcatheter edge-to-edge repair. CASE SUMMARY: A 61-year-old man with torrential TR, severe right ventricular (RV) dilation (6.2 cm), and severe RV dysfunction presented with NYHA functional class IV symptoms. He was refractory to diuretics and inotropes and was declined for surgery, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair, and transplant. He underwent transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement with the LuX-Valve Plus. Postprocedure echocardiography showed improved RV end-diastolic area, RV fractional area change, and RV strain, with RV function improving to mild-moderate. He improved symptomatically but later died from unrelated complications. DISCUSSION: This case illustrates the feasibility of the LuX-Valve Plus in torrential TR with severe RV dysfunction and dilation. Procedural success and early signs of RV remodeling were achieved. TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement with the LuX-Valve Plus is viable in high-risk TR patients. Multiparametric RV assessment is essential for guiding intervention.

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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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