ReviewJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair versus tricuspid valve replacement versus optimal medical therapy in moderate-to-severe tricuspid regurgitation: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is associated with substantial morbidity and increased mortality. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) and transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) have emerged as less-invasive options for patients remaining symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy (OMT). We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TEER and TTVR versus OMT.
methodsThree RCTs were included after systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect (inception to December 2025). A frequentist network meta-analysis (random-effects) was performed in R. A Bayesian NMA with vague priors was conducted in parallel to obtain posterior rank probabilities and SUCRA values. Relative effects were translated into absolute risk differences and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) / number-needed-to-harm (NNH) using pooled OMT baseline event rates, with 95% CIs via parametric bootstrap.
resultsThe network comprised 1,050 patients (star-shaped, OMT common comparator; no direct TEER-TTVR comparison). Neither TEER (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56-1.76) nor TTVR (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51-1.41) significantly reduced all-cause mortality. Both interventions improved NYHA class ≥ 1 class (TEER RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30-1.64, NNT 8; TTVR RR 3.28, 95% CI 2.41-4.47, NNT 2), KCCQ-OS (TEER MD + 11.00, 95% CI 7.46-14.54; TTVR MD + 17.80, 95% CI 12.78-22.82; both exceeding the 5-point MCID with ≥ 95% confidence), and 6MWD (TEER MD + 17.53 m; TTVR MD + 30.90 m; neither clearly exceeding the 30-m MCID). Both increased major bleeding (TEER NNH 29; TTVR NNH 21) and new pacemaker implantation (TEER NNH 91; TTVR NNH 10). Bayesian posterior probability that TTVR was best was 100% for NYHA improvement, 99% for KCCQ-OS, and 82% for 6MWD, but only 1% for avoidance of pacemaker implantation.
conclusionIn patients with symptomatic moderate-to-severe TR, both TEER and TTVR plus OMT provide consistent and clinically meaningful improvements in functional status and quality of life. Longer-term trials with direct head-to-head comparisons are warranted. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published randomized controlled trials.
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.