Mortality and heart failure in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation. Impact of RV volumes and function by CMR.
R Hinojar Baydes,N Ramos,J Rodriguez Palomares,R Eiros,M Barreiro,M J Calero,S Rodriguez,L Gutierrez,L Galian,C Garcia-Sebastian,J M Monteagudo,A Garcia-Martin,A Gonzalez-Gomez,C Fernandez-Golfin,J L Zamorano
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1937
IF: 39.3
2024-10-28
European Heart Journal
Abstract:Background Beyond symptoms, right ventricle (RV) dilatation and dysfunction are established criteria for intervention in patients with significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR); however defined thresholds to support intervention are lacking. As a result, the optimal timing for intervention remains controversial and it is commonly undertaken at a late stage. Purpose To describe prognostic cut-off values of RV size and function by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in a multicentre cohort of patients with at least severe TR. Methods The study enrolled patients with at least severe TR assessed by 2D echocardiography who underwent a contemporary cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) study. Conventional parameters of biventricular volume and function were assessed in all patients. A combined endpoint of hospital admission due to heart failure (HF) and all-cause mortality was defined. Results 318 patients with severe TR recruited from 5 tertiary care hospitals were included in this study (70 ± 11 years, 67% female, 73% NYHA I or II). Regarding the etiology, 10% were primary TR, 1% CIED-related TR, 46 % atrial secondary TR and 43% ventricular secondary TR. After a median follow-up of 28 months (IQR: 10-54 months), 42% of the patients (n=134) experienced the combined endpoint (n=113 were admitted due to HF, n=61 died). After adjusting for age, NYHA class, comorbidities, type of TR and LVEF in a multivariate Cox proportional model (LR Chi-Square: 88.01, p<0.001), RV-EDV and RVEF were independently associated with all-cause mortality and heart failure (adjusted HR for RV-EDV per ml/m2 =1.008 [1.005-1.012], p<0.001 and RVEF HR per 1%=0.961 [0.942-0.981], p<0.001). Thresholds of RV-EDV ≥ 93 ml/m2, RV-ESV ≥ 39 ml/m2 and RVEF ≤ 58% held the best accuracy to predict outcomes (figure). In multivariable analysis, prognostic cut-off values of RV-EDV, RV-ESV and RVEF was associated with 1.91, 2.03, and 1.76-fold increased risk of HF or all-cause mortality respectively (RV-EDV HR: 1.91 [1.34-2.71], p<0.001, RV-ESV HR 2.03 [1.42-2.89], p<0.001 and RVEF HR1.76 [1.25-2.49], p=0.001). Conclusion RV size and function are crucial for determining optimal timing for TR intervention. CMR remains the gold standard to assess RV remodeling. Cut-off values of RV volume and function by CMR are defined in a multicentre cohort of patients based on outcome data; proposed thresholds differ from those previously established by echocardiography.Kaplan Meier curves
cardiac & cardiovascular systems