Key result
Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement with either the Cardiovalve or EVOQUE prosthesis resulted in significant and comparable reductions in tricuspid regurgitation grade at 30 days (mean TR grade 0.50 vs 0.46, p=0.408).
Why the study?
TTVR is an option for high surgical risk severe TR unsuitable for T-TEER, but procedural, clinical, and echocardiographic comparisons between the Cardiovalve and EVOQUE devices were needed.
Does TTVR with Cardiovalve or EVOQUE prostheses improve TR grade and NYHA class in high-risk patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation?
Cohort (n=25)
No
Does TTVR with Cardiovalve or EVOQUE prostheses improve TR grade and NYHA class in high-risk patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.5% vs 0.46%
p-value: p=0.408
TTVR with both Cardiovalve and EVOQUE prostheses is an effective treatment option, leading to profound TR reduction and meaningful clinical improvement at 30-day follow-up in high-risk patients.
Background Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement (TTVR) has emerged as a treatment option for patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) who are at high surgical risk and unsuitable for tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (T-TEER). Objectives This study aims to compare procedural, clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of two different TTVR devices: the Cardiovalve (Venus MedTech) and the EVOQUE (Edwards Lifesciences) prosthesis. Methods We performed a retrospective, single-center cohort analysis including all consecutive patients who were treated with TTVR. Primary endpoints included TR reduction, NYHA class and safety events according to TVARC criteria. Results Overall, 25 consecutive patients were included in the analysis. The Cardiovalve prosthesis was implanted in 12 patients and the EVOQUE prosthesis in 13 patients. Intraprocedural success was 100%. There was a significant reduction in TR grade (4.20 vs. 0.48; p < 0.001) and NYHA class (2.72 vs. 1.88; p = 0.004) for the overall cohort at 30-day follow-up, but no differences between the two devices (TR grade 0.50 vs. 0.46; p = 0.408 and NYHA class 1.75 vs. 2.00; p = 0.813; Cardiovalve and EVOQUE respectively). Mortality rate at 30 days was 0% in both groups. One patient in each group (8.0%) required new pacemaker implantation. Conclusion TTVR with both, the Cardiovalve and EVOQUE prothesis is an effective treatment option, leading to profound TR reduction and meaningful clinical improvement at 30-day follow-up. Patient selection and long term follow up need to be the focus of future studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Genske et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Severe tricuspid regurgitation (n=25). Cardiovalve prosthesis vs. EVOQUE prosthesis was evaluated on Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) grade at 30 days (p=0.408). Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement with either the Cardiovalve or EVOQUE prosthesis resulted in significant and comparable reductions in tricuspid regurgitation grade at 30 days (mean TR grade 0.50 vs 0.46, p=0.408).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: