4.1 Review

Transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention: a practical algorithm for patient selection

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN CARDIOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 164-172

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000607

Keywords

transcatheter repair; tricuspid regurgitation; tricuspid valve replacement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review Worldwide experience in transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention is increasing as more options become available for the treatment of severe tricuspid regurgitation. These devices can be categorized by their primary mechanism of action, including edge-to-edge leaflet devices, space occupying devices, annuloplasty devices, complete valve replacement and caval valve implantation. This review summarizes the current technologies in use, early clinical results and factors that may affect procedural success. Recent findings Almost all transcatheter devices for tricuspid regurgitation are investigational with very limited evidence. The most commonly used device is the MitraClip (Abbott, Santa Clara, CA, USA) edge-to-edge leaflet device, which is often more effective when the leaflet coaptation gap is not too large (ideally under 7 mm). The Tricuspid Cardioband (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) annuloplasty device has CE mark approval with promising short-term procedural results. Guideline-based assessment of disease severity and medication optimization is crucial during heart team evaluation of eligibility for intervention. Summary Although important lessons have been learned thus far regarding patient and device selection for transcatheter tricuspid regurgitation interventions, the field remains young and further research is needed to optimize treatment in terms of who, when and with what device. Our proposed algorithm for patient selection based on current knowledge incorporates both clinical and anatomic factors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available