MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The impact of baseline right heart size and function on heart failure hospitalization and mortality: 2-year results of the TRILUMINATE Trial

2025· article· en· W7127603079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R Hahn, N Hamid, R Bae, T Smith, R Miyasaka, Moody Makar, S Lerakis, M Scherer, D Adams, P Sorajja

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failurePulmonary arteryCentral venous pressureRegurgitation (circulation)Tricuspid valveRandomized controlled trialPulmonary hypertensionVentricle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Little is known about right heart remodeling outcomes following tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) repair for the treatment of severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Purpose To assess the association between baseline right heart size and function on 2-year outcomes following tricuspid TEER in patients with severe, symptomatic TR from the TRILUMINATE Pivotal randomized controlled trial. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1 to tricuspid TEER + medical therapy (Device) or medical therapy alone (Control). Echocardiograms were analyzed by an independent core laboratory, and an independent clinical events committee adjudicated adverse events. RV dilation was defined as a basal RV end-diastolic dimension indexed to body surface area (RVEDDi) ≥24.5 mm/m2. RV function was defined based on tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE): normal (>1.7 cm), mild-moderate dysfunction (1.3-1.7 cm), and severe dysfunction (<1.3 cm). Severe right atrial (RA) dilatation was defined as RA volume index (RAVi) of >60 mL/m2. Pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) was estimated using the peak TR velocity plus an estimate of RA pressure. Normal RV-pulmonary artery (PA) coupling ratio was defined as TAPSE/PASP>0.4 mm/mmHg. Results A total of 572 patients were randomized (285 to Device, 287 to Control) from 68 centers in the US, Canada and Europe. Baseline RAVi (77.4±41.3 mL/m2), tricuspid valve annulus (4.3±0.8 cm), and basal RVEDDi (27.2±4.6 mm/m2) were consistent with RV remodeling, with TAPSE = 1.7±0.4 cm. Basal RVEDDi was predictive of mortality at 2 years (8.2% for RVEDDi<24.5 mm/m2 vs 21.4% for RVEDD≥24.5 mm/m2, p=0.0004), with no differences between treatment groups. Mortality was not significantly different by stated cutoffs for either the whole group, or between groups for RAVi, RV dysfunction severity by TAPSE, or TAPSE/PASP. The Table shows the annualized HFH for right heart size and function. Among subjects with RV dilation, HFH rate was significantly lower in Device vs Control subjects at 2 years (p=0.0079) and were similar with no RV dilation (p=0.83). Among subjects with severe RV dysfunction, HFH rate was significantly lower in Device vs Control subjects at 2 years (p=0.0008) but were similar in subjects with normal or mild-moderate RV dysfunction (p>0.6 for both). In patients without severe RA dilatation, HFH rate was significantly lower in Device vs Control at 2 years (p=0.0018) and was similar in patients with severe RA dilatation (p=0.35). For patients with TAPSE/PASP>0.4 mm/mmHg, HFH rate was significantly lower in Device vs Control at 2 years (p=0.0024) and was similar with TAPSE/PASP ≤0.4 (p=0.61). Conclusions Compared to medical therapy, annualized 2-year HFH was significantly lower in patients treated with TEER with baseline RV dilatation, severe RV dysfunction, normal RV-PA coupling, and non-severe RA dilatation. Basal RVEDDi was predictive of all-cause mortality at 2 years for both treatment groups.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 topicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→