比较PISA法和三尖瓣适应间隙测量的有效返流孔面积,以识别非常严重的三尖瓣返流并分层死亡风险

Y Bohbot, L Tordjman, J Dreyfus, T Le Tourneau, Y Lavie Badie, C Selto, B Elegamandji, G L'official, A Fraix, S Aghezzaf, P Y Turgeon, M Enriquez Sarano, A Coisne, E Donal, C Tribouilloy
{"title":"比较PISA法和三尖瓣适应间隙测量的有效返流孔面积,以识别非常严重的三尖瓣返流并分层死亡风险","authors":"Y Bohbot, L Tordjman, J Dreyfus, T Le Tourneau, Y Lavie Badie, C Selto, B Elegamandji, G L'official, A Fraix, S Aghezzaf, P Y Turgeon, M Enriquez Sarano, A Coisne, E Donal, C Tribouilloy","doi":"10.1093/ehjci/jead119.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Various definitions of very severe (VS) tricuspid regurgitation (TR) have been proposed based on the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) or tricuspid coaptation gap (TCG). Because of the inherent limitations associated with the EROA, we hypothesized that the TCG would be more suitable for defining VSTR and predicting outcomes. Purpose To compare EROA and TCG for outcome prediction in patients with severe TR Methods In this French multicentre retrospective study, we included 606 patients with ≥ moderate-to-severe isolated TR (without structural valve disease or an overt cardiac cause) according to the recommendations of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Patients were further stratified into VSTR according to the EROA (≥60 mm²) and then according to the TCG (≥10 mm). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality. Results The relationship between the EROA and TCG was poor (R²=0.21), especially when the size of the defect was large. Four-year survival was comparable between patients with an EROA <60 mm² vs. ≥ 60 mm² (67±3% vs. 64±4%, p = 0.64), even after adjustment, for all-cause (p = 0.72) and cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.18). A TCG ≥10 mm was associated with lower four-year survival than a TCG <10 mm (53±7% vs. 69±3%, p<0.001). After adjustment for covariates, including age, comorbidity, right heart failure, dose of diuretics, and right ventricular dysfunction, a TCG ≥10 mm remained independently associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]=1.46[1.15–2.18], p = 0.015) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]=1.95[1.22–3.14], p <0.001), whereas an EROA ≥60 mm² was not associated with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]:1.07[0.75–1.51], p = 0.720, and adjusted HR[95%CI]:1.35[0.87–2.09], p = 0.176, respectively) Conclusion The correlation between the TCG and EROA is weak and decreases with increasing defect size. A TCG ≥10mm is associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and should be used to define VSTR in isolated TR.","PeriodicalId":11963,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Echocardiography","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of effective regurgitant orifice area by the PISA method and tricuspid coaptation gap measurement to identify very severe tricuspid regurgitation and stratify mortality risk\",\"authors\":\"Y Bohbot, L Tordjman, J Dreyfus, T Le Tourneau, Y Lavie Badie, C Selto, B Elegamandji, G L'official, A Fraix, S Aghezzaf, P Y Turgeon, M Enriquez Sarano, A Coisne, E Donal, C Tribouilloy\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjci/jead119.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Various definitions of very severe (VS) tricuspid regurgitation (TR) have been proposed based on the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) or tricuspid coaptation gap (TCG). Because of the inherent limitations associated with the EROA, we hypothesized that the TCG would be more suitable for defining VSTR and predicting outcomes. Purpose To compare EROA and TCG for outcome prediction in patients with severe TR Methods In this French multicentre retrospective study, we included 606 patients with ≥ moderate-to-severe isolated TR (without structural valve disease or an overt cardiac cause) according to the recommendations of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Patients were further stratified into VSTR according to the EROA (≥60 mm²) and then according to the TCG (≥10 mm). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality. Results The relationship between the EROA and TCG was poor (R²=0.21), especially when the size of the defect was large. Four-year survival was comparable between patients with an EROA <60 mm² vs. ≥ 60 mm² (67±3% vs. 64±4%, p = 0.64), even after adjustment, for all-cause (p = 0.72) and cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.18). A TCG ≥10 mm was associated with lower four-year survival than a TCG <10 mm (53±7% vs. 69±3%, p<0.001). After adjustment for covariates, including age, comorbidity, right heart failure, dose of diuretics, and right ventricular dysfunction, a TCG ≥10 mm remained independently associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]=1.46[1.15–2.18], p = 0.015) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]=1.95[1.22–3.14], p <0.001), whereas an EROA ≥60 mm² was not associated with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]:1.07[0.75–1.51], p = 0.720, and adjusted HR[95%CI]:1.35[0.87–2.09], p = 0.176, respectively) Conclusion The correlation between the TCG and EROA is weak and decreases with increasing defect size. A TCG ≥10mm is associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and should be used to define VSTR in isolated TR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Echocardiography\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Echocardiography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jead119.009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Echocardiography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jead119.009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

资金来源类型:无。基于有效反流孔面积(EROA)或三尖瓣适应间隙(TCG),对非常严重(VS)三尖瓣反流(TR)有不同的定义。由于与EROA相关的固有局限性,我们假设TCG更适合定义VSTR和预测结果。目的比较EROA和TCG对严重TR患者预后的预测方法在这项法国多中心回顾性研究中,根据欧洲心血管影像学协会的建议,我们纳入了606例≥中度至重度孤立TR(无结构性瓣膜疾病或明显心脏原因)的患者。再根据EROA(≥60 mm²)和TCG(≥10 mm)将患者分为VSTR组。主要终点是全因死亡率,次要终点是心血管死亡率。结果EROA与TCG的相关性较差(R²=0.21),尤其是当缺损较大时。即使在调整后,EROA≤60 mm²和≥60 mm²患者的4年生存率(67±3%对64±4%,p = 0.64)与全因(p = 0.72)和心血管死亡率(p = 0.18)相当。TCG≥10mm与TCG≤10mm相比,四年生存率较低(53±7% vs 69±3%,p<0.001)。校正协变量后,包括年龄、合共病、右心衰、利尿剂剂量和右室功能障碍,TCG≥10 mm仍然与较高的全因死亡率(校正HR[95%CI]=1.46[1.15-2.18], p = 0.015)和心血管死亡率(校正HR[95%CI]=1.95[1.22-3.14], p <0.001)独立相关,而EROA≥60 mm²与全因或心血管死亡率无关(校正HR[95%CI]:1.07[0.75-1.51], p = 0.720)。校正HR[95%CI]:1.35[0.87-2.09], p = 0.176)结论TCG与EROA的相关性较弱,随缺损尺寸的增大而降低。TCG≥10mm与全因死亡率和心血管死亡率增加相关,应用于确定孤立性TR的VSTR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of effective regurgitant orifice area by the PISA method and tricuspid coaptation gap measurement to identify very severe tricuspid regurgitation and stratify mortality risk
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Various definitions of very severe (VS) tricuspid regurgitation (TR) have been proposed based on the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) or tricuspid coaptation gap (TCG). Because of the inherent limitations associated with the EROA, we hypothesized that the TCG would be more suitable for defining VSTR and predicting outcomes. Purpose To compare EROA and TCG for outcome prediction in patients with severe TR Methods In this French multicentre retrospective study, we included 606 patients with ≥ moderate-to-severe isolated TR (without structural valve disease or an overt cardiac cause) according to the recommendations of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Patients were further stratified into VSTR according to the EROA (≥60 mm²) and then according to the TCG (≥10 mm). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality. Results The relationship between the EROA and TCG was poor (R²=0.21), especially when the size of the defect was large. Four-year survival was comparable between patients with an EROA &lt;60 mm² vs. ≥ 60 mm² (67±3% vs. 64±4%, p = 0.64), even after adjustment, for all-cause (p = 0.72) and cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.18). A TCG ≥10 mm was associated with lower four-year survival than a TCG &lt;10 mm (53±7% vs. 69±3%, p&lt;0.001). After adjustment for covariates, including age, comorbidity, right heart failure, dose of diuretics, and right ventricular dysfunction, a TCG ≥10 mm remained independently associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]=1.46[1.15–2.18], p = 0.015) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]=1.95[1.22–3.14], p &lt;0.001), whereas an EROA ≥60 mm² was not associated with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR[95%CI]:1.07[0.75–1.51], p = 0.720, and adjusted HR[95%CI]:1.35[0.87–2.09], p = 0.176, respectively) Conclusion The correlation between the TCG and EROA is weak and decreases with increasing defect size. A TCG ≥10mm is associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and should be used to define VSTR in isolated TR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Echocardiography
European Journal of Echocardiography 医学-心血管系统
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信