BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The prosthesis of choice for a tricuspid valve replacement is still unkown. This meta-analysis was undertaken to review the results of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in the tricuspid position. METHODS: We identified all relevant studies published in the past 20 years (from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2014) through the Embase, Current Contents, and PubMed databases. The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence limits were utilized to evaluate time-to-event related effects of surgical procedures. The Q-statistic, Index of Inconsistency test, funnel plots, and Egger's test were used to assess the degree of heterogeneity and publication bias. Random effects models were used, and study quality was also assessed. RESULTS: In our meta-analysis, 22 studies published from 1995 to 2014 were reviewed and 2630 patients and 14,694 follow-up years were analyzed. No statistically significant difference was identified between mechanical and biological valves in terms of survival, reoperation, and prosthetic valve failure. The respective pooled hazard ratio estimates were 0.95 (0.79 to 1.16, p = 0.62, I(2) = 29%), 1.20 (0.84 to 1.71, p = 0.33, I(2) = 0%), and 0.35 (0.06 to 2.01, p = 0.24, I(2) = 0%). A higher risk of thrombosis was found in mechanical tricuspid valve prostheses (3.86, 1.38 to 10.82, p = 0.01, I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference was identified between mechanical and biological valves in terms of survival, reoperation, or prosthetic valve failure, but mechanical tricuspid valve prostheses had a higher risk of thrombosis. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12730 (J Card Surg 2016;31:294-302).
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The prosthesis of choice for a tricuspid valve replacement is still unkown. This meta-analysis was undertaken to review the results of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in the tricuspid position. METHODS: We identified all relevant studies published in the past 20 years (from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2014) through the Embase, Current Contents, and PubMed databases. The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence limits were utilized to evaluate time-to-event related effects of surgical procedures. The Q-statistic, Index of Inconsistency test, funnel plots, and Egger's test were used to assess the degree of heterogeneity and publication bias. Random effects models were used, and study quality was also assessed. RESULTS: In our meta-analysis, 22 studies published from 1995 to 2014 were reviewed and 2630 patients and 14,694 follow-up years were analyzed. No statistically significant difference was identified between mechanical and biological valves in terms of survival, reoperation, and prosthetic valve failure. The respective pooled hazard ratio estimates were 0.95 (0.79 to 1.16, p = 0.62, I(2) = 29%), 1.20 (0.84 to 1.71, p = 0.33, I(2) = 0%), and 0.35 (0.06 to 2.01, p = 0.24, I(2) = 0%). A higher risk of thrombosis was found in mechanical tricuspid valve prostheses (3.86, 1.38 to 10.82, p = 0.01, I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference was identified between mechanical and biological valves in terms of survival, reoperation, or prosthetic valve failure, but mechanical tricuspid valve prostheses had a higher risk of thrombosis. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12730 (J Card Surg 2016;31:294-302).
Authors: Zachary L Steinberg; Clara P Dominguez-Islas; Catherine M Otto; Karen K Stout; Eric V Krieger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Igor Belluschi; Benedetto Del Forno; Elisabetta Lapenna; Teodora Nisi; Giuseppe Iaci; David Ferrara; Alessandro Castiglioni; Ottavio Alfieri; Michele De Bonis Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2018-08-28
Authors: Philipp Lake; Elmar W Kuhn; Victor Mauri; Sascha Macherey; Julia Kaliba; Stephan Baldus; Christian Frerker; Tobias Schmidt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 5.460