ArticleStructural heart : the journal of the Heart Team2024
Eligibility and Potential Benefit of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair in a Contemporary Cohort With Heart Failure: Evidence From a Large Integrated Health Care Delivery System.
Article in Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Editorial: Real World Transcatheter Edge to Edge Repair Eligibility in HF Patients: Finding theStructural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The eligibility and potential benefit of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy to treat moderate-severe or severe secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) has not been reported in a contemporary heart failure (HF) population. Methods: Eligibility for TEER based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling: (1) HF symptoms, (2) moderate-severe or severe MR, (3) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 20% to 50%, (4) left ventricular end-systolic dimension 7.0 cm, and (5) receiving GDMT (blocker + angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker). The proportion (%) of patients eligible for TEER. The hypothetical number needed to treat to prevent or postpone adverse outcomes was estimated using relative risk reductions from published hazard ratios in the registration trial and the observed event rates. Results: We identified 50,841 adults with HF and known LVEF. After applying FDA criteria, 2461 patients (4.8%) were considered eligible for transcatheter mitral valve replacement (FDA+), with the vast majority of patients excluded (FDA-) based on a lack of clinically significant MR (N = 47,279). FDA+ patients had higher natriuretic peptide levels and were more likely to have a prior HF hospitalization compared to FDA- patients. Although FDA+ patients had a more dilated left ventricle and lower LVEF, median (25th-75th) left ventricular end-systolic dimension (cm) was low at 4.4 (3.7-5.1) and only 30.8% had severely reduced LVEF. FDA+ patients were at higher risk of HF-related morbidity and mortality. The estimated number needed to treat to potentially prevent or postpone all-cause hospitalization was 4.4, 8.8 for HF hospitalization, and 5.3 for all-cause death at 24 months in FDA+ patients. Conclusions: There is a low prevalence of TEER eligibility based on FDA criteria primarily due to absence of moderate-severe or severe MR. FDA+ patients are a high acuity population and may potentially derive a robust clinical benefit from TEER based on pivotal studies. Additional research is necessary to validate the scope of eligibility and comparative effectiveness of TEER in real-world populations.
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.