Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement-a comparison of clinical and procedural outcomes of two different prostheses.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Genske Florian, Heine Judith, Marquetand Christoph, Stiermaier Thomas, Eitel Ingo, Frerker Christian, Schmidt Tobias
Аннотация
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.
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.