Key result
Patients with primary tricuspid regurgitation had better survival than secondary or lead-associated TR, with STR HR 1.4 and LTR HR 1.5 after adjustment.
Why the study?
The impact of tricuspid regurgitation etiology on overall survival and the associated risk factors in each subgroup were not well studied.
Does the etiology of significant tricuspid regurgitation (secondary or lead-associated versus primary) affect overall survival?
Does the etiology of significant tricuspid regurgitation (secondary or lead-associated versus primary) affect overall survival?
Patients with secondary and lead-associated tricuspid regurgitation have significantly worse survival compared to those with primary tricuspid regurgitation, highlighting the importance of etiology-specific risk profiling.
Background Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common valvular disorder that can affect patients’ quality of life and survival. The impact of TR etiology on overall survival and the associated risk factors in each subgroup are not well studied. Methods Multisite, retrospective study evaluating survival based on TR etiology using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression models. Stepwise approach was used to define TR etiology (≥moderate): primary (PTR; presence of a primary valvular pathology), lead associated (LTR; lead interfering with closure), and secondary TR (STR) in the setting of left‐sided valvular disease, left ventricular disease, other causes of pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular disease, and atrial secondary TR. Results A total of 12 899 patients were included (3% PTR, 90% STR, 7% LTR). The mean age was 68±14, 73±13, and 71±13 years, respectively (44%–55% female patients). Adjusting for age, sex, and TR severity, patients with PTR had better overall survival (PTR: reference; STR hazard ratio [HR], 1.4 [1.2–1.6], LTR HR, 1.5 [1.1–1.7]). On multivariable Cox regression, the Tricuspid Regurgitation Impact on Outcomes score was associated with mortality across all groups ( P <0.05 for all). In addition, other risk factors associated with worse outcomes included pulmonary hypertension and ≥moderate right ventricular enlargement in PTR; left‐sided valvular disease, pulmonary hypertension, and ≥moderate right ventricular dysfunction in STR; and left ventricular disease and ≥moderate right ventricular dysfunction in LTR. Conclusions Patients with PTR have better survival than STR and LTR. Tricuspid Regurgitation Impact on Outcomes score was associated with mortality across etiologies, whereas other risk factors are etiology specific. Improved risk profiling may enhance patient selection, treatment decisions, and outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alabdaljabar et al. (2026) studied this question. Patients with primary tricuspid regurgitation had better survival than secondary or lead-associated TR, with STR HR 1.4 and LTR HR 1.5 after adjustment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: