BackgroundThe edge-to-edge transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (TTVR) has emerged as a promising technique for the treatment of tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Despite its potential, comparative data on the performance of the novel edge-to-edge devices—MitraClip, PASCAL, and TriClip—remain controversial. In this study, we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these devices in treating TR.MethodsFive databases were systematically searched up to May 2023, with an updated search conducted in May 2024. Only original studies were included in the analysis and were critically evaluated using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational cohort studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool for randomized controlled trials.ResultsThe database search yielded 2239 studies, out of which 21 studies were included in the final analysis. These studies encompassed a total of 2178 patients who underwent TTVR using either the MitraClip, TriClip, or PASCAL devices. The risk of bias across these studies ranged from moderate to high. No significant differences were found among the three devices in terms of effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) and tricuspid regurgitant volume. However, TriClip demonstrated statistically superior efficacy in reducing vena contracta compared to both MitraClip and PASCAL (P < 0.01) [TriClip: (MD = -7.4; 95% CI: -9.24, -5.56), MitraClip: (MD = -4.04; 95% CI: -5.03, -3.05), and PASCAL: (MD = -6.56; 95% CI: -7.76, -5.35)]. The procedural success rates and incidence of single leaflet device attachment (SLDA) were similar across all devices. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in mortality, stroke rates, or major bleeding events among the three devices.ConclusionThe TriClip outperforms the MitraClip and PASCAL in reducing vena contracta width, indicating greater effectiveness for severe tricuspid regurgitation. All devices show similar safety profiles and procedural success rates. Further research is needed to confirm these results.
Read full abstract