Why the study?
Multiple clinical guidelines exist for the diagnosis and management of tricuspid regurgitation, but their recommendations may vary.
This systematic review highlights consensus on basic TR management but identifies significant gaps and discrepancies in advanced imaging, risk stratification, and transcatheter interventions across current guidelines.
TR guideline inconsistencies warrant cautious clinical application; leaves open key questions on optimal management pending further evidence.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ricci et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on Tricuspid regurgitationMore from European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes