Comparative efficacy and safety of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair versus tricuspid valve replacement versus optimal medical therapy in moderate-to-severe tricuspid regurgitation: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ihsan Noushad Karuppan Veettil, Anuhya Jamandlamudi, Nebeela Abdul Khader, Tea Shehu, Doris Laçej, Shivangi Jha, Obawole Mayowa, Joshua Zumba, Temirlan Ismailov, Zhanel Almaganbetova

4 more authors

Bertha Gabriela, Lina Hajjar, Sifat Ullah Safi, Muneeb Khawar

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1186/s13019-026-04265-9
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is associated with substantial morbidity and increased mortality. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) and transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) have emerged as less-invasive options for patients remaining symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy (OMT). We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TEER and TTVR versus OMT. METHODS: Three RCTs were included after systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect (inception to December 2025). A frequentist network meta-analysis (random-effects) was performed in R. A Bayesian NMA with vague priors was conducted in parallel to obtain posterior rank probabilities and SUCRA values. Relative effects were translated into absolute risk differences and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) / number-needed-to-harm (NNH) using pooled OMT baseline event rates, with 95% CIs via parametric bootstrap. RESULTS: The network comprised 1,050 patients (star-shaped, OMT common comparator; no direct TEER-TTVR comparison). Neither TEER (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56-1.76) nor TTVR (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51-1.41) significantly reduced all-cause mortality. Both interventions improved NYHA class ≥ 1 class (TEER RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30-1.64, NNT 8; TTVR RR 3.28, 95% CI 2.41-4.47, NNT 2), KCCQ-OS (TEER MD + 11.00, 95% CI 7.46-14.54; TTVR MD + 17.80, 95% CI 12.78-22.82; both exceeding the 5-point MCID with ≥ 95% confidence), and 6MWD (TEER MD + 17.53 m; TTVR MD + 30.90 m; neither clearly exceeding the 30-m MCID). Both increased major bleeding (TEER NNH 29; TTVR NNH 21) and new pacemaker implantation (TEER NNH 91; TTVR NNH 10). Bayesian posterior probability that TTVR was best was 100% for NYHA improvement, 99% for KCCQ-OS, and 82% for 6MWD, but only 1% for avoidance of pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSION: In patients with symptomatic moderate-to-severe TR, both TEER and TTVR plus OMT provide consistent and clinically meaningful improvements in functional status and quality of life. Longer-term trials with direct head-to-head comparisons are warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published randomized controlled trials.