| Literature DB >> 26047936 |
Wen-Jun Ren1, Ben-Gui Zhang2, Jia-Sheng Liu3, Yong-Jun Qian4, Ying-Qiang Guo5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacies of tricuspid valve repair, risk factors for treatment failure and postoperative quality of life have not been thoroughly evaluated in patients with tricuspid insufficiency associated with rheumatic heart disease (RHD). We therefore reviewed our experience with ring and non-ring tricuspid annuloplasty for the treatment of functional tricuspid insufficiency (TI) in RHD.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26047936 PMCID: PMC4457093 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-015-0281-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Characteristics of the patients
| Characteristic | Annuloplasty without ring (De Vega procedure) (n = 34) | Annuloplasty with ring (n = 40) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr ± SD) | 47.2 ± 7.3 | 49.5 ± 8.7 | 0.241 | ||
| Male | 7 | 20.6 % | 4 | 10.0 % | 0.326 |
| Preoperative NYHA ClassIII-IV | 33 | 97.1 % | 38 | 95.0 % | 0.945 |
| Preoperative TI grade | |||||
| None (n) | 0 | 0.0 % | 0 | 0.0 % | 0.131 |
| Mild (n) | 8 | 23.5 % | 14 | 35.0 % | |
| Moderate (n) | 18 | 52.9 % | 23 | 57.5 % | |
| Severe (n) | 8 | 23.5 % | 3 | 7.5 % | |
| Preoperative TS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Preoperative mitral valve disease | |||||
| None (n) | 0 | 0.0 % | 0 | 0.0 % | 0.808 |
| Stenosis (n) | 21 | 61.7 % | 24 | 60.0 % | |
| Insufficiency (n) | 2 | 5.8 % | 4 | 10.0 % | |
| Stenosis and insufficiency (n) | 11 | 32.4 % | 12 | 30.0 % | |
| Preoperative aortic valve disease | |||||
| None (n) | 17 | 50.0 % | 21 | 52.5 % | 0.98 |
| Stenosis (n) | 1 | 2.9 % | 1 | 2.5 % | |
| Insufficiency (n) | 7 | 20.6 % | 9 | 22.5 % | |
| Stenosis and insufficiency (n) | 9 | 26.5 % | 9 | 22.5 % | |
| Preoperative | |||||
| LVEF | 55.9 ± 9.1 | 58.1 ± 7.1 | 0.253 | ||
| RVD | 22.9 ± 5.1 | 21.9 ± 3.4 | 0.29 | ||
| LVD | 49.6 ± 6.66 | 47.9 ± 8.8 | 0.351 | ||
| PASP | 51.5 ± 16.6 | 49.9 ± 14.2 | 0.668 | ||
| 1 year Postoperative | |||||
| LVEF | 61.9 ± 10.0 | 61.0 ± 8.8 | 0.733 | ||
| RVD | 20.7 ± 2.9 | 20.0 ± 2.2 | 0.277 | ||
| LVD | 44.5 ± 5.6 | 45.6 ± 4.1 | 0.37 | ||
| PASP | 36.5 ± 7.4 | 36.0 ± 8.3 | 0.903 | ||
| Concomitant procedures | |||||
| MVR (n) | 22 | 64.7 % | 32 | 80.0 % | 0.132 |
| AVR (n) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| MVR + AVR (n) | 12 | 35.3 % | 8 | 20.0 % | |
AVR aortic valve replacement, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LVD left ventricular diameter, RVD right ventricular diameter, MVR mitral valve replacement, NYHA New York Heart Association, PASP pulmonary arterial systolic pressure, SD standard deviation, TI tricuspid valve insuffiency, TS tricuspid valve stenosis
Fig. 1Kaplan–Meier curves after surgery. a Survival curves in the De Vega procedure group and the ring annuloplasty group. (log rank P = 0.6755) b Freedom from mild and above recurrence of tricuspid insufficiency in the De Vega procedure group and the ring annuloplasty group. (log rank P = 0.0377) c Freedom from moderate-to-severe recurrence of tricuspid insufficiency in the De Vega procedure group and the ring annuloplasty group (log rank P = 0.0970)
Multivariate regression analysis of the risk factors for TI recurrence
| Variable | Hazard ratio | SE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative PASP | 0.51 | 0.018 | 1.52 | 0.22 |
| Non-ring Annuloplasty, (De Vega procedure) | 0.46 | 0.051 | 1.47 | 0.24 |
PASP pulmonary arterial systolic pressure, SE standard error, TI tricuspid insufficiency
Comparison of pre-and postoperative SF-36 scores between the ring and non-ring annuloplasty groups
| Domain and summary scores | De Vega procedure | Ring annuloplasty | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Functioning | Pre | 33.60 ± 10.86 | 34.67 ± 15.31 |
| Post | 46.11 ± 13.84 | 52.67 ± 11.04 | |
|
|
| ||
| Role-physical Problem | Pre | 30.34 ± 15.38 | 32.92 ± 13.00 |
| Post | 49.65 ± 14.17 | 53.75 ± 14.37 | |
|
|
| ||
| Body Pain | Pre | 47.46 ± 16.04 | 47.78 ± 14.00 |
| Post | 51.16 ± 15.32 | 52.22 ± 12.75 | |
|
|
| ||
| General Health Perception | Pre | 39.31 ± 9.19 | 38.17 ± 15.95 |
| Post | 46.39 ± 13.29 | 51.67 ± 11.32 | |
|
|
| ||
| Vitality | Pre | 42.17 ± 9.16 | 43.89 ± 11.28 |
| Post | 46.83 ± 10.87 | 49.17 ± 9.90 | |
|
|
| ||
| Social Functioning | Pre | 35.67 ± 9.44 | 37.50 ± 9.52 |
| Post | 46.17 ± 9.35 | 47.08 ± 9.66 | |
|
|
| ||
| Role-emotional Problem | Pre | 45.18 ± 9.65 | 43.51 ± 14.64 |
| Post | 57.4 ± 13.71 | 53.70 ± 11.42 | |
|
|
| ||
| Mental Health | Pre | 47.00 ± 14.36 | 37.78 ± 12.16 |
| Post | 48.17 ± 13.29 | 45.97 ± 14.48 | |
|
|
| ||
| PCS | Pre | 38.61 ± 6.55 | 38.38 ± 8.34 |
| Post | 47.40 ± 6.97 | 52.58 ± 6.89 | |
|
|
| ||
| MCS | Pre | 42.50 ± 5.69 | 40.67 ± 5.73 |
| Post | 49.64 ± 5.74 | 48.98 ± 5.81 | |
|
|
| ||
MCS mental component summary, PCS physical component summary. Bold face numbers shows the P < 0.05