Literature DB >> 27636399

Which type of valve should we use in tricuspid position? Long-term comparison between mechanical and biological valves.

Ana Redondo Palacios1, José López Menéndez2, Javier Miguelena Hycka2, Miren Martín García2, Laura Varela Barca2, Andrea Ferreiro Marzal3, Rafael Muñoz Pérez2, Enrique Oliva de Anquín2, Ignacio García Andrade2, Tomasa Centella Hernández2, Daniel Celemín Canorea2, Jorge Rodríguez-Roda Stuart2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) is much less common than aortic or mitral valve replacement, since repair is almost always preferable. Prosthetic tricuspid valves are associated with high mortality and morbidity, mostly due to thrombotic or hemorrhagic events. Nevertheless, there is lack of evidence of which is the optimal type of valve (biological versus mechanical) in tricuspid position.
METHODS: We analyzed all the patients who underwent TVR in our Institution, from 2005 to 2015. Patient baseline characteristics were recorded (such as functional class, previous cardiac surgery, right ventricular dysfunction or pulmonary hypertension), and a clinical long-term follow-up was conducted. We compared the outcomes between mechanical and biological prostheses: in-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, need for reintervention and adverse events (such as stroke or valve thrombosis).
RESULTS: During the study period 120 tricuspid prosthetic valves were implanted in 111 patients. 81 of them (67.5%) were bioprostheses, and 39 (32.5%) mechanical valves. 73 patients (60.8%) had undergone a previous cardiac surgery (28.4% had previous tricuspid surgery). Most of the patients (87.1%) were in high functional class (grade III-IV of the NYHA classification), and 85% had moderate to severe pulmonary hypertension. Mean logistic EuroSCORE I was 14.80%. Only 37 cases were isolated TVR (30.6%), as most of the cases were TVR concomitant to mitral valve replacement. In-hospital mortality was 21.7%, and during the follow-up (mean follow-up of 7 years) reached 37.5%. Three mechanical tricuspid valves (7.7%) had to be replaced due to thrombosis, while 7 biological valves (8.6%) had to be replaced due to valve deterioration. The incidence of stroke was 7.5%.
CONCLUSIONS: Tricuspid valve replacement is an infrequent procedure with a high incidence of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Biological or mechanical valves have similar mortality, and a reasonably low incidence of need for reintervention due to thrombosis or valve deterioration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27636399     DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09553-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino)        ISSN: 0021-9509            Impact factor:   1.888


  2 in total

1.  Comparative early outcomes of tricuspid Valve repair versus replacement for secondary tricuspid regurgitation.

Authors:  Mohamad Alkhouli; Chalak Berzingi; Amer Kowatli; Fahad Alqahtani; Vinay Badhwar
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2018-09-10

2.  The better substitute for tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe isolated tricuspid regurgitation.

Authors:  Weitao Liang; Honghua Yue; Tao Li; Xiaoli Qin; Yongjun Qian; Zhong Wu
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.596

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.