BACKGROUND: Whether to use biological or mechanical prostheses and whether to repair or replace the tricuspid valve during primary and reoperative triple valve surgery remains controversial. The objective of the present study was to review our experience with primary and reoperative triple valve surgery using CarboMedics (CM) and Carpentier-Edwards (C-E) heart valves. METHODS: All 73 patients undergoing triple valve surgery since 1982 were prospectively followed at the Montreal Heart Institute valve clinic. Aortic valve replacement was performed with CM prostheses (57 patients) and with C-E prostheses (16 patients). Mitral valve replacement was performed with mechanical prostheses (56 patients) and with biological valves (14 patients). Mitral valve repair was done in 3 patients. Tricuspid valve annuloplasty or commissurotomy or both were performed in 66 patients and the tricuspid valve was replaced in 7 patients. Patient survival, complications, and the type of valve procedures were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty patients averaging 62+/-10 years of age underwent primary triple valve surgery and 43 patients averaging 60+/-10 years of age underwent reoperative triple valve surgery (p = 0.5). Tricuspid repair consisted of annuloplasty with the Bex linear reducer (n = 47), the C-E ring (n = 13), or the De Vega technique (n = 5). Tricuspid valve replacement was done using the C-E pericardial prostheses. The 30-day mortality was 17% and 12% in patients with primary and reoperative surgery, respectively (p = 0.5) and patient survival averaged 80%+/-7%, 75%+/-8%, and 41%+/-15%, and 70%+/-7%, 57%+/-9%, and 50%+/-10%, respectively 1, 5, and 10 years following surgery (p = 0.5). The freedom rate from thromboembolism and from bleeding complications were 87%+/-6% and 95%+/-3% in primary and reoperative patients, respectively, 5 years following surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Triple valve surgery, either as a primary or a reoperative procedure, results in acceptable long-term survival with both mechanical and biological prostheses.
BACKGROUND: Whether to use biological or mechanical prostheses and whether to repair or replace the tricuspid valve during primary and reoperative triple valve surgery remains controversial. The objective of the present study was to review our experience with primary and reoperative triple valve surgery using CarboMedics (CM) and Carpentier-Edwards (C-E) heart valves. METHODS: All 73 patients undergoing triple valve surgery since 1982 were prospectively followed at the Montreal Heart Institute valve clinic. Aortic valve replacement was performed with CM prostheses (57 patients) and with C-E prostheses (16 patients). Mitral valve replacement was performed with mechanical prostheses (56 patients) and with biological valves (14 patients). Mitral valve repair was done in 3 patients. Tricuspid valve annuloplasty or commissurotomy or both were performed in 66 patients and the tricuspid valve was replaced in 7 patients. Patient survival, complications, and the type of valve procedures were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty patients averaging 62+/-10 years of age underwent primary triple valve surgery and 43 patients averaging 60+/-10 years of age underwent reoperative triple valve surgery (p = 0.5). Tricuspid repair consisted of annuloplasty with the Bex linear reducer (n = 47), the C-E ring (n = 13), or the De Vega technique (n = 5). Tricuspid valve replacement was done using the C-E pericardial prostheses. The 30-day mortality was 17% and 12% in patients with primary and reoperative surgery, respectively (p = 0.5) and patient survival averaged 80%+/-7%, 75%+/-8%, and 41%+/-15%, and 70%+/-7%, 57%+/-9%, and 50%+/-10%, respectively 1, 5, and 10 years following surgery (p = 0.5). The freedom rate from thromboembolism and from bleeding complications were 87%+/-6% and 95%+/-3% in primary and reoperative patients, respectively, 5 years following surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Triple valve surgery, either as a primary or a reoperative procedure, results in acceptable long-term survival with both mechanical and biological prostheses.
Authors: Sung Ho Shinn; Sam-Sae Oh; Chan Young Na; Chang-Ha Lee; Hong-Gook Lim; Jae Hyun Kim; Kil Soo Yie; Man Jong Baek; Dong Seop Song Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 2.153