ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2023
Comparison of outcomes between transcatheter tricuspid valve repair and surgical tricuspid valve replacement or repair in patients with tricuspid insufficiency.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- In-Hospital Outcomes After Tricuspid Valve Surgery in the United States: Impact of Surgical Center Volumes.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Intracardiac Echocardiography as the Primary Imaging Modality for Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Procedures.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of Valvular Heart Disease in Asia Pacific Region.JACC. Asia · 2025Review
- Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical and Transcatheter Interventions for Tricuspid Regurgitation: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Comparison of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Tricuspid Repair Among Patients With Tricuspid Regurgitation: Two-Year Results.Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2025Article
- Transcatheter Tricuspid Regurgitation Repair-An Overview of Techniques and Eligible Patient Selection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- National Estimates for the Percentage of All Readmissions With Demographic Features, Morbidity, Overall and Gender-Specific Mortality of Transcutaneous Versus Open Surgical Tricuspid Valve Replacement/Repair.Cardiology research · 2024Review
- Present and Future Surgical Options for Tricuspid Regurgitation.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Tricuspid Regurgitation: A Review of Current Interventional Management.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTricuspid regurgitation is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, but with limited treatment options. The objective of this study is to compare the demographic characteristics, complications, and outcomes of transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (TTVr) versus surgical tricuspid valve replacement (STVR) or surgical tricuspid valve repair (STVr), using real-world data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. METHODS AND
resultsOur study analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2016 to 2018 and identified 92, 86, and 84 patients with tricuspid insufficiency who underwent STVr, STVR, and TTVr, respectively. The mean ages of patients who received STVr, STVR, and TTVr were 65.03 years, 66.3 years, and 71.09 years, respectively, with TTVr patients significantly older than those who received STVr (P < 0.05). Patients who received STVr or STVR had higher mortality rates (8.7% and 3.5%, respectively) compared to those who received TTVr (1.2%). Patients who underwent STVr or STVR were also more likely to experience perioperative complications, including third-degree atrioventricular block (8.7% STVr vs. 1.2% TTVr, P = 0.329; 38.4% STVR vs. 1.2% TTVr, P < 0.05), respiratory failure (5.4% STVr vs. 1.2% TTVr, P = 0.369; 15.1% STVR vs. 1.2% TTVr, P < 0.05), respiratory complications (6.5% STVr vs. 1.2% TTVr, P = 0.372; 19.8% STVR vs. 1.2% TTVr, P < 0.05), acute kidney injury (40.2% STVr vs. 27.4% TTVr, P = 0.367; 34.9% STVR vs. 27.4% TTVr, P = 0.617), and fluid and electrolyte disorders (44.6% STVr vs. 22.6% TTVr, P = 0.1332; 50% STVR vs. 22.6% TTVr, P < 0.05). In addition, the average cost of care and the average length of hospital stay were higher for patients who underwent STVr or STVR than for those who received TTVr (USD$37995 ± 356008.523 STVr vs. USD$198397 ± 188943.082 TTVr, P < 0.05; USD$470948 ± 614177.568 STVR vs. USD$198397 ± 188943.082 TTVr, P < 0.05; 15.4 ± 15.19 STVr vs. 9.6 ± 10.21 days TTVr, P = 0.267; 24.7 ± 28.81 STVR vs. 9.6 ± 10.21 days TTVr, P < 0.05).
conclusionTTVr has shown to have favorable outcomes compared to STVr or STVR, but more research and clinical trials are required to help formulate evidence-based guidelines for the role of catheter-based management in tricuspid valve disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.