Tanaka Tetsu, Vogelhuber Johanna, Öztürk Can, Silaschi Miriam, Bakhtiary Farhad, Zimmer Sebastian, Nickenig Georg, Weber Marcel, Sugiura Atsushi
Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Dec 9;17(23):2732-2744. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.09.019.
It remains unclear what proportion of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are suitable candidates for transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI) in clinical practice.
The aim of this study was to ascertain the prevalence of eligibility for tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (T-TEER) and transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) devices among patients with TR.
The tricuspid valve anatomy of all consecutive patients with TR who were considered for TTVI in local heart team conferences was retrospectively reviewed. According to current expert consensus, the anatomical feasibility for T-TEER was classified into 3 groups: favorable, feasible, and unfavorable anatomy. Clinical and anatomical eligibility for TTVR was evaluated in patients with cardiac computed tomographic (CCT) images.
Among 491 patients, 99 (20.2%) and 235 (47.9%) were considered to have favorable and feasible anatomy for T-TEER, respectively. In contrast, 157 patients (32.0%) had unfavorable anatomy for T-TEER. The most common reason for unfavorable anatomy for T-TEER was large coaptation gap width (66.2%), followed by anteroposterior TR jet location (62.4%). Among 327 patients with CCT images, 205 (62.7%) were judged to be clinically or anatomically ineligible for TTVR, mainly because of tricuspid annuli larger than commercially available prosthesis sizes (65.4%). Combined echocardiographic and CCT assessment showed that 23.2% of the patients with TR were ineligible for both T-TEER and TTVR.
Of 491 patients requiring TTVI, 32.0% had unfavorable anatomy for T-TEER, and 37.3% of patients with CCT images were eligible for TTVR. Despite the emergence of TTVR devices, 23.2% of patients with TR remained ineligible for both T-TEER and TTVR.
在临床实践中,三尖瓣反流(TR)患者中适合经导管三尖瓣介入治疗(TTVI)的比例仍不明确。
本研究旨在确定TR患者中适合三尖瓣经导管缘对缘修复(T-TEER)和经导管三尖瓣置换(TTVR)装置的患病率。
回顾性分析了在当地心脏团队会议上被考虑进行TTVI的所有连续性TR患者的三尖瓣解剖结构。根据当前专家共识,T-TEER的解剖可行性分为3组:有利、可行和不利解剖结构。对有心脏计算机断层扫描(CCT)图像的患者进行TTVR的临床和解剖适宜性评估。
在491例患者中,分别有99例(20.2%)和235例(47.9%)被认为具有适合T-TEER的有利和可行解剖结构。相比之下,157例患者(32.0%)具有不适合T-TEER的解剖结构。T-TEER解剖结构不利的最常见原因是瓣叶对合间隙宽度大(66.2%),其次是前后TR喷射位置(62.4%)。在327例有CCT图像的患者中,205例(62.7%)被判定在临床或解剖上不适合TTVR,主要原因是三尖瓣环大于市售假体尺寸(65.4%)。超声心动图和CCT联合评估显示,23.2%的TR患者不适合T-TEER和TTVR。
在491例需要TTVI的患者中,32.0%具有不适合T-TEER的解剖结构,37.3%有CCT图像的患者适合TTVR。尽管出现了TTVR装置,但23.2%的TR患者仍不适合T-TEER和TTVR。