ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement-a comparison of clinical and procedural outcomes of two different prostheses.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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; 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.
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.