Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences,G.d' Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Jan Waldenströmsgata 35-205, 22100 Malmö, Sweden.
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2022 May 5;8(3):238-248. doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab081.
Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a highly prevalent condition and an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes. Multiple clinical guidelines exist for the diagnosis and management of TR, but the recommendations may sometimes vary. We systematically reviewed high-quality guidelines with a specific focus on areas of agreement, disagreement, and gaps in evidence. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (1 January 2011 to 30 August 2021), the Guidelines International Network International, Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, Google Scholar, and websites of relevant organizations for contemporary guidelines that were rigorously developed (as assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool). Three guidelines were finally retained. There was consensus on a TR grading system, recognition of isolated functional TR associated with atrial fibrillation, and indications for valve surgery in symptomatic vs. asymptomatic patients, primary vs. secondary TR, and isolated TR forms. Discrepancies exist in the role of biomarkers, complementary multimodality imaging, exercise echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing for risk stratification and clinical decision-making of progressive TR and asymptomatic severe TR, management of atrial functional TR, and choice of transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI). Risk-based thresholds for quantitative TR grading, robust risk score models for TR surgery, surveillance intervals, population-based screening programmes, TTVI indications, and consensus on endpoint definitions are lacking.
三尖瓣反流(TR)是一种高发疾病,也是不良结局的独立危险因素。有多个关于 TR 诊断和管理的临床指南,但推荐意见有时存在差异。我们系统地回顾了高质量的指南,特别关注共识、分歧和证据空白的领域。我们检索了 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE(2011 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 8 月 30 日)、指南国际网络国际、指南库、国家指南清除中心、国家卫生指南查找器、加拿大医学协会临床实践指南信息库、Google Scholar 和相关组织的网站,以获取精心制定的当代指南(由评估研究和评估 II 工具评估)。最终保留了 3 个指南。指南对 TR 分级系统、与房颤相关的孤立性功能性 TR 的认识以及症状性 vs. 无症状性患者、原发性 vs. 继发性 TR 和孤立性 TR 形式的瓣膜手术适应证达成了共识。在生物标志物、补充多模态成像、运动超声心动图和心肺运动试验在进行性 TR 和无症状性严重 TR 的风险分层和临床决策、心房功能性 TR 的管理以及经导管三尖瓣介入治疗(TTVI)的选择方面存在分歧。缺乏用于定量 TR 分级的基于风险的阈值、用于 TR 手术的稳健风险评分模型、监测间隔、基于人群的筛查计划、TTVI 适应证以及终点定义的共识。