Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022 · 69 citations · 37 references
MedicineCardiologyInternal MedicineCardiothoracic SurgeryClinical CardiologyHemodynamic ManagementEchocardiographic Hemodynamic AssessmentHeart FailureTricuspid RegurgitationValvular Heart DiseaseEchocardiographic Severity AssessmentIntracardiac EchocardiographyPrognosis Of Tricuspid RegurgitationRight Ventricular EchocardiographySecondary Tricuspid RegurgitationSeverity AnalysisTricuspid Annular Dilatation
Aim We sought to evaluate the differences in prognosis between the atrial (A-STR) and the ventricular (V-STR) phenotypes of secondary tricuspid regurgitation. Materials and methods Consecutive patients with moderate or severe STR referred for echocardiography were enrolled. A-STR and V-STR were defined according to the last ACC/AHA guidelines criteria. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. Results A total of 211 patients were enrolled. The prevalence of A-STR in our cohort was 26%. Patients with A- STR were significantly older and with lower NYHA functional class than V-STR patients. The prevalence of severe STR was similar (28% in A-STR vs. 37% in V-STR, p = 0.291). A-STR patients had smaller tenting height (TH) (10 ± 4 mm vs. 12 ± 7 mm, p = 0.023), larger end-diastolic tricuspid annulus area (9 ± 2 cm 2 vs. 7 ± 6 cm 2 /m 2 , p = 0.007), smaller right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic volumes (72 ± 27 ml/m 2 vs. 92 ± 38 ml/m 2 ; p = 0.001), and better RV longitudinal function (18 ± 7 mm vs. 16 ± 6 mm; p = 0.126 for TAPSE, and −21 ± 5% vs. −18 ± 5%; p = 0.006, for RV free-wall longitudinal strain, RVFWLS) than V-STR patients. Conversely, RV ejection fraction (RVEF, 48 ± 10% vs. 46 ± 11%, p = 0.257) and maximal right atrial volumes (64 ± 38 ml/m 2 vs. 55 ± 23 ml/m 2 , p = 0.327) were similar between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 10 months, patients with V-STR had a 2.7-fold higher risk (HR: 2.7, 95% CI 95% = 1.3–5.7) of experiencing the combined endpoint than A-STR patients. The factors related to outcomes resulted different between the two STR phenotypes: TR-severity (HR: 5.8, CI 95% = 1, 4–25, P = 0.019) in A-STR patients; TR severity (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.4–6.3, p = 0.005), RVEF (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–0.99, p = 0.044), and RVFWLS (HR: 0.93, 95% CI 0.85–0.98, p = 0.009) in V-STR. Conclusion Almost one-third of patients referred to the echocardiography laboratory for significant STR have A-STR. A-STR patients had a lower incidence of the combined endpoint than V-STR patients. Moreover, while TR severity was the only independent factor associated to outcome in A-STR patients, TR severity and RV function were independently associated with outcome in V-STR patients.
37
Roberto M. Lang, Luigi P. Badano, Victor Mor‐Avi et al. · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · 2015 · 18K citations · Full text
Sherif F. Nagueh, Otto A. Smiseth, Christopher P. Appleton et al. · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · 2016 · 6.7K citations · Full text
Catherine M Otto, Rick A. Nishimura, Robert O. Bonow et al. · Circulation · 2020 · 3.6K citations · Full text
Patrizio Lancellotti, Luís M. Moura, Luc Piérard et al. · European Journal of Echocardiography · 2010 · 1.5K citations · Full text
Medicine, Cardiology, Radiology +17