Why the study?
Current surgical standards lack strong prospective evidence of positive clinical impact, while advances in risk stratification and emerging percutaneous options require addressing TR's prognostic impact across clinical contexts.
What is the prognostic impact of tricuspid regurgitation in different clinical contexts?
What is the prognostic impact of tricuspid regurgitation in different clinical contexts?
This review highlights the negative prognostic impact of tricuspid regurgitation across different etiologies and severities, emphasizing the need for improved diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.
Even milder TR merits inclusion in prognostic models across conditions; leaves open etiology-specific intervention trials.
Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has a considerable prevalence in the overall population, that further increases in selected categories of patients. Three morphologic types of TR prevail, namely primary, secondary and atrial TR, mostly, but not always, occurring in different subsets of patients. Recent evidences demonstrate a negative impact of TR on outcomes, irrespective of etiology and even when less than severe in grading. Unfortunately, current surgical standards are void of strong prospective evidence of positive impact on clinical outcomes. While on one hand recent advances in diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with TR are shedding light onto the population that may benefit from intervention and its appropriate timing, on the other hand the arrival on stage of percutaneous treatment options is widening even more the therapeutic options for such population. In this review we will address and discuss the available evidence on the prognostic impact of TR in different clinical contexts encountered in practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leone et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: