No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Right ventricle (RV) dysfunction represent an established criteria for intervention in patients with significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR). RV ejection fraction (RVEF) by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) is considered the gold standard of RV function; however it is influenced by changes of preload conditions and may remain unaffected until late stages in severe TR. Novel measures of RV function such as RV longitudinal shortening (RV-LS) and effective RV ejection fraction (eRVEF) may be earlier markers of RV dysfunction. Purpose To compare the prognostic impact of conventional and novel parameters of RV systolic function. Methods Consecutive patients in stable clinical condition evaluated in the Heart Valve Clinic with significant TR (severe, massive or torrential TR) undergoing a CMR study were included. In addition to conventional parameters of biventricular volume and function, RV-LS and eRVEF were assessed as novel parameters of RV function. RV-LS was assessed in the 4-chamber view by measuring the displacement of the tricuspid annulus during the cardiac cycle. The length between the epicardial border of the LV apex and the middle of a line connecting the origins of the tricuspid valve leaflets was measured in both end-systole and end-diastole. Effective RVEF (eRVEF) is a measure of RV global systolic function but corrected by TR volume. Both formulas are represented in figure 1. A combined endpoint of hospital admission due to right heart failure and cardiovascular mortality was defined Results 75 patients were included in this study (age 75±8 years, 75% female, 91% functional TR) During a median follow-up of 3 years (IQR: 1.4–3.9 years), 39% of the patients (n=29) experienced the combined endpoint. RV-LS and eRVEF identified higher rates of RV dysfunction than RVEF. RV-LS of ≥−14% and eRVEF of ≤34% were associated with impaired prognosis (figure 2). After adjustment of age and LVEF, both eRVEF (adjusted HR per abnormal value: 5.29 95% CI, [2.25–12.4]) and RV-LS (adjusted HR per abnormal value: 3.46, 95% CI, [1.13–9.17]) were significantly associated with outcomes. Among all parameters of RV function, eRVEF was the strongest predictor of outcomes, incremental to RVEF (Δ C-statistic 0.139 [0.040–0.237], p=0.005). Conclusion RV function is crucial for determining optimal timing for TR intervention. RV-LS and eRVEF identify higher rates of RV dysfunction beyond RVEF. Among all measures of RV function, eRVEF held the strongest association with outcome, incremental to RVEF. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1. RV-LS and eRVEF calculation Figure 2. Kaplan Meier Curves

Background and objectives 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 surgery in TR remains controversial and surgery is commonly undertaken at a late stage. Purpose To describe predictive cut-off values of RV size and function of poor prognosis in asymptomatic patients with significant TR. Methods Consecutive patients in stable clinical condition evaluated in the Heart Valve Clinic with significant TR (severe, massive or torrential TR) undergoing a Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) study were included. Conventional parameters of biventricular volume and function were assessed in all patients. A combined endpoint of hospital admission due to right heart failure and cardiovascular mortality was defined. Results 75 patients were included in this study (age 75±8 years, 75% female, 91% functional TR). During a median follow-up of 3 years (IQR: 1.4–3.9 years), 39% of the patients (n=29) experienced the combined endpoint. After adjusting for age and LVEF in a multivariate Cox proportional model, RV-EDV and RVEF were independently associated with cardiovascular mortality and heart failure. Thresholds of RV-EDV ≥100 ml/m2, RV-ESV ≥40 ml/m2 and RVEF ≤58% held the best accuracy to predict outcomes (figure 1). Regression spline model for RVEF and outcomes are presented in the figure 2. They show that RV function negatively impacted event-free survival, with an increase in the HR spline function near the crossing value (red line, RVEF ≤58%). In multivariable analysis, following adjustment for age and LVEF, a value of RVEF ≤58% and RV-EDV ≥100 ml/m2, was associated with 2.29, and 3.91-fold increased risk of heart failure or cardiovascular death respectively (RVEF Hazard Ratio (HR): 2.29 [1.06–4.9], p=0.03, and RV-EDV HR: 3.91 [1.56–9.82], p=0.004). Conclusion RV size and function are crucial for determining optimal timing for TR intervention. For the first time, cut-off values of RV volume and function are defined in a cohort of consecutive patients based on outcome data. Proposed values provide a basis for prospective studies to establish definitive optimal surgical timing for severe TR. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1. ROC and Cox regressions analysis Regression spline curve