BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve replacement is seldom used in clinical practice, but the choice between mechanical and biologic prostheses remains controversial. METHODS: Between 1977 and 2002, 97 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement and were followed at the Montreal Heart Institute Valve Clinic. Patients underwent replacement with bioprostheses (n = 82) and mechanical valves (n = 15). RESULTS: Patients with bioprosthetic tricuspid replacements averaged 53 +/- 13 years of age compared with 48 +/- 11 years in those with tricuspid mechanical valve replacements (p = 0.2). Isolated tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 11 patients (73%) in the mechanical valve group compared with 31 patients (38%. p = 0.01) in the bioprosthetic replacement group. In patients undergoing bioprosthetic tricuspid replacement, 51 (62%) underwent multiple associated valve replacements. The 5-year survival after tricuspid replacement averaged 60% +/- 13% in the mechanical valve group and 56% +/- 6% in the biologic replacement group (p = 0.8). The 5-year freedom rate from tricuspid valve reoperation averaged 91% +/- 9% in patients with mechanical valves and 97% +/- 3% in those with biologic valves (p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS; Patient survival after tricuspid valve replacement is suboptimal but related to the clinical condition at operation. The use of biologic prostheses for tricuspid valve replacement remains a good option in young patients because of limited life expectancy unrelated to the type of tricuspid prostheses at long-term follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve replacement is seldom used in clinical practice, but the choice between mechanical and biologic prostheses remains controversial. METHODS: Between 1977 and 2002, 97 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement and were followed at the Montreal Heart Institute Valve Clinic. Patients underwent replacement with bioprostheses (n = 82) and mechanical valves (n = 15). RESULTS:Patients with bioprosthetic tricuspid replacements averaged 53 +/- 13 years of age compared with 48 +/- 11 years in those with tricuspid mechanical valve replacements (p = 0.2). Isolated tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 11 patients (73%) in the mechanical valve group compared with 31 patients (38%. p = 0.01) in the bioprosthetic replacement group. In patients undergoing bioprosthetic tricuspid replacement, 51 (62%) underwent multiple associated valve replacements. The 5-year survival after tricuspid replacement averaged 60% +/- 13% in the mechanical valve group and 56% +/- 6% in the biologic replacement group (p = 0.8). The 5-year freedom rate from tricuspid valve reoperation averaged 91% +/- 9% in patients with mechanical valves and 97% +/- 3% in those with biologic valves (p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS; Patient survival after tricuspid valve replacement is suboptimal but related to the clinical condition at operation. The use of biologic prostheses for tricuspid valve replacement remains a good option in young patients because of limited life expectancy unrelated to the type of tricuspid prostheses at long-term follow-up.