Key result
Higher TR EROA linked to ~160% greater mortality risk per increment.
Why the study?
The added value of quantitative evaluation of tricuspid regurgitation and the cut-off values associated with increased mortality were unknown.
Does quantitative assessment of tricuspid regurgitation by effective regurgitant orifice measurement improve risk stratification for mortality compared to qualitative assessment in patients with all-cause TR?
Population
676 patients with all-cause TR
Comparison
Quantitative assessment vs qualitative grading of TR
Design
Cohort study
Follow-up
1-year and long-term
Authors
Loading...
ERO quantification may refine mortality risk stratification in TR; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before guiding practice.
Cohort (n=676)
Does quantitative assessment of tricuspid regurgitation by effective regurgitant orifice measurement improve risk stratification for mortality compared to qualitative assessment in patients with all-cause TR?
Effect estimate: HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.25-5.0)
p-value: p=0.01
Quantitative assessment of tricuspid regurgitation by effective regurgitant orifice is a powerful independent predictor of mortality, with optimal cut-offs of 0.35 cm2 for severe TR and 0.7 cm2 for torrential TR.
Peri et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Tricuspid regurgitation (n=676). Quantitative assessment of effective regurgitant orifice (ERO) vs. Qualitative assessment was evaluated on Survival (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.25-5.0, p=0.01). Quantitative assessment of tricuspid regurgitation by effective regurgitant orifice independently predicted decreased survival (adjusted HR 2.6; 95% CI 1.25-5.0; P=0.01 per 0.1 cm2 increment).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: