Morphological diversity of the tricuspid posterior leaflet affects surgical complexity for control of tricuspid regurgitation

Table 4 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses of the risk predictors of requiring additional procedures

	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
	OR	95% CI	p value	OR	95% CI	p value
Model using echocardiographic data
Pre TR score	2.3	1.3–4.1	0.0025	1.8	1.0–3.4	0.042
PH (estimated RVSP of > 40 mmHg)	2.6	1.2–6.0	0.021	1.9	0.79–4.6	0.15
RA minimum (4-chamber view)	1.0	0.99–1.1	0.14
RA maximum (4-chamber view)	1.0	0.99–1.0	0.28
TRPG	1.0	0.99–1.0	0.20
LVDd (parasternal long-axis view)	0.99	0.94–1.0	0.57
LVDs (parasternal long-axis view)	0.98	0.95–1.0	0.61
TV diameter, mm/m²	0.97	0.89–1.1	0.44
Model using clinical data
Valve with two posterior leaflets	3.4	1.5–7.7	0.0036	2.6	1.1–6.1	0.033
Male sex	0.56	0.26–1.3	0.16
Body surface area	0.22	0.026–1.9	0.16
Age	1.0	0.96–1.1	0.75
NYHA class ≥ II heart failure	2.0	0.43–9.5	0.33
Atrial fibrillation	1.5	0.61–3.6	0.38
Dyslipidemia	2.0	0.82–4.6	0.13
Ischemic heart disease	2.3	0.93–5.7	0.078

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, Pre TR score preoperative tricuspid regurgitation score, PH pulmonary hypertension (estimated right ventricular systolic pressure > 40 mmHg), RVSP right ventricular systolic pressure, RA right atrium, TRPG transtricuspid pressure gradient, LVDd left ventricular diastolic dimension, LVDs left ventricular systolic dimension, TV tricuspid valve, NYHA New York Heart Association

ISSN: 1749-8090