Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Annuloplasty vs Edge-to-Edge Repair: A Propensity-Matched Multicenter Comparative Analysis.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background Transcatheter tricuspid valve (TV) interventions are an effective treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation (TR). TV transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (T-TEER) and transcatheter TV annuloplasty (TTVA) represent distinct repair strategies; however, comparative data remain limited.Objectives The objective of the study was to compare procedural and clinical outcomes after T-TEER and TTVA in patients with severe secondary TR.Methods Consecutive T-TEER or TTVA-treated patients (2017-2024) were included. A 1:1 propensity-score matching was performed. Endpoints included residual TR ≤ 1+/≤2+, a ≥2-grade reduction, procedural complications, symptomatic improvement, reinterventions, and the composite of all-cause mortality or first heart failure hospitalization within 1 year.Results Among 1,122 patients (882 T-TEER; 240 TTVA), 111 well-balanced matched pairs were identified. At discharge, T-TEER achieved higher rates of residual TR ≤ 1+ (50.0% vs 34.2%) and ≤2+ (87.7% vs 67.6%; all P < 0.05) compared with TTVA, whereas a ≥2-grade reduction was comparable. Procedural complications were less frequent with T-TEER (any complication: 4.5% vs 27.0% for T-TEER vs TTVA; P < 0.001). Symptomatic improvement and reintervention rates within 1 year were similar between groups. Freedom from the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or first heart failure hospitalization at 1-year was 75.0% (95% CI: 66.8-84.1) after T-TEER and 79.8% (95% CI: 72.4-87.9) after TTVA (P = 0.408).Conclusions In patients with severe secondary TR and sufficient clinical and anatomical overlap for matched comparison, T-TEER showed a more favorable safety profile and more effective, durable TR reduction, whereas early clinical outcomes at 1 year were comparable after adjustment for baseline differences, highlighting the need for longer-term evaluation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.