MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416060519 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf784.035

Sex-specific differences in right heart remodeling and patient outcomes in secondary tricuspid regurgitation

2025· article· en· W4416060519 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Tomaselli, Marco Penso, Luigi P. Badano, Noela Radu, Paolo Springhetti, A. Buţă, Giorgia Benzoni, Diana-Ruxandra Hădăreanu, Sergio Caravita, Claudia Baratto, Albrecht M. Clement, Samantha Fisicaro, Marie‐Annick Clavel, Denisa Muraru

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricleEjection fractionAtrial fibrillationRegurgitation (circulation)Heart failureMitral regurgitationCentral venous pressureVentricular remodelingClinical endpoint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Recent evidence shows sex differences in secondary tricuspid regurgitation (STR). However, guidelines do not provide sex-specific echocardiographic thresholds for assessing STR severity and identifying adverse remodeling of the right ventricle (RV) and tricuspid annulus (TA). Purpose We sought to evaluate whether cutoff values for regurgitation severity, as well as RV and TA remodeling associated with adverse outcomes differ between men and women with STR. Methods 554 consecutive patients (74±13 years, 51% women) with moderate and severe STR underwent conventional and advanced echocardiography. The primary study endpoint was the occurrence of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Results Women were older (p<0.001), had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (p=0.008) and higher systolic blood pressure (p<0.001). In contrast, men were more likely to have coronary artery disease (p<0.001), stage IV-V chronic kidney disease (p=0.005), and significant mitral regurgitation (p<0.001). RV ejection fraction (RVEF) was higher in women (p<0.001). Furthermore, women also exhibited smaller RV, right atrium and TA than men. Importantly, atrial-STR was more prevalent in women (p<0.001). During a follow-up period of 19(8-27) months, 230 patients reached the composite endpoint. At the 2-year follow-up, event-free survival rates were comparable for both sexes (p=0.183), even after inverse-propensity weighting (p=0.342) (Figure 1). Risk-based sex-specific thresholds for STR severity differed between men and women, with lower cutoffs in women for the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) (0.36cm² vs. 0.43cm²), regurgitant volume (RegVol) (31mL vs. 35mL), and a higher regurgitant fraction (46% vs. 39%). Women also exhibited higher risk at lower thresholds for RV end-diastolic volume (81mL/m² vs. 96mL/m²), RV end-systolic volume (37mL/m² vs. 49mL/m²), and higher RVEF (49% vs. 41%). Similarly, sex-specific differences were observed in TA dimensions, with a 4-chamber TA diameter threshold of 19mm/m² for women versus 22mm/m² for men. Conclusions Although both sexes exhibit similar survival rates in STR, women face a higher risk at lower EROA and RegVol, as well as with smaller RV volumes, higher RVEF, and smaller TA dimensions. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating sex-specific thresholds into clinical decision-making when assessing STR severity and right heart remodeling to improve patient outcomes.Sex-Specific Differences in Right Heart

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→