4.5 Review

Patient selection, echocardiographic screening and treatment strategies for interventional tricuspid repair using the edge-to-edge repair technique

期刊

EUROINTERVENTION
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 645-653

出版社

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-01136

关键词

chronic heart failure; transoesophageal echocardiogram; tricuspid disease

资金

  1. Abbott

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has long been neglected despite its well-known association with mortality. While surgical mortality rates remain high in isolated tricuspid valve surgery, interventional TR repair is rapidly evolving as an alternative to cardiac surgery in selected patients at high surgical risk. Currently, interventional edge-to-edge repair is the most frequently applied technique for TR repair even though a device has not been developed for this particular indication. Due to the inherent differences in tricuspid and mitral valve anatomy and pathology, percutaneous repair of the tricuspid valve is challenging due to a variety of factors including the complexity and variability of tricuspid valve anatomy, echocardiographic visibility of the valve leaflets, and device steering to the tricuspid valve. Furthermore, it remains to be clarified which patients are suitable for a percutaneous tricuspid repair and which features predict a successful procedure. On the basis of the available experience, we describe criteria for patient selection including morphological valve features, a standardised process for echocardiographic screening, and a strategy for clip placement. These criteria will help to achieve standardisation of valve assessment and the procedural approach, and to develop interventional tricuspid valve repair further, using either currently available devices or dedicated tricuspid edge-to-edge repair devices in the future. In summary, this manuscript will provide guidance for patient selection and echocardiographic screening when considering edge-to-edge repair for severe TR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据