Literature DB >> 29409618

Outcome of tricuspid valve surgery in the presence of permanent pacemaker.

Nishant Saran1, Sameh M Said2, Hartzell V Schaff1, Simon Maltais1, John M Stulak1, Kevin L Greason1, Richard C Daly1, Alberto Pochettino1, Katherine S King3, Joseph A Dearani1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Given the paucity of available literature, we sought to evaluate the mechanisms of tricuspid regurgitation and the outcomes of tricuspid valve surgery in the presence of permanent pacemakers.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 622 adult patients who underwent tricuspid valve surgery in the presence of permanent pacemakers between January 1993 and December 2013. Those with prosthetic tricuspid valve or tricuspid valve endocarditis and those undergoing concomitant heart transplant were excluded (n = 23). Patients were divided into 2 etiologic groups: pacemaker-associated tricuspid regurgitation (n = 349, 58%) and pacemaker-induced tricuspid regurgitation (n = 249, 42%). One patient was not categorized, because permanent pacemaker involvement was unknown.
RESULTS: Mean age was 69.5 ± 12.0 years; 312 patients (52%) were female. In pacemaker-associated tricuspid regurgitation, the most common cause was functional (n = 304, 87%). The most common mechanism leading to pacemaker-induced tricuspid regurgitation was restricted leaflet mobility (n = 101, 41%), followed by adherent leaflet to the leads (n = 93, 37%), leaflet perforation (n = 30, 12%), scarring of leaflets (n = 19, 8%), and chordal entrapment (n = 18, 7%). The most common leaflet involved was septal leaflet (n = 182, 73%). Tricuspid valve repair (n = 215, 62%) was higher in the pacemaker-associated tricuspid regurgitation group. In multivariable analysis, pacemaker-induced tricuspid regurgitation was found to be protective with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.98). Other independent risk factors of mortality included tricuspid valve replacement (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.20-1.87), nonelective surgery (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.33-2.08), diabetes (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73), severe tricuspid regurgitation (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.95), and older age when there was a concomitant aortic valve surgery (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.15-1.79).
CONCLUSIONS: Several mechanisms lead to pacemaker-induced tricuspid regurgitation. Pacemaker-induced tricuspid regurgitation when compared with pacemaker-associated tricuspid regurgitation carries a better prognosis with improved survival.
Copyright © 2017 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  permanent pacemaker; tricuspid valve; tricuspid valve regurgitation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29409618     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.11.093

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  4 in total

Review 1.  Strategies for tricuspid valve repair.

Authors:  Nishant Saran; Joseph A Dearani
Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-05-22

2.  Pacing lead extraction in the management of tricuspid regurgitation: a case report.

Authors:  Lynn Khor; Kedar Madan; Choon Huat Lee; Martin K C Ng
Journal:  Eur Heart J Case Rep       Date:  2022-05-17

3.  Tricuspid insufficiency after cardiac-implantable electronic device placement.

Authors:  Nismat Javed; Raafe Iqbal; Jahanzeb Malik; Ghazanfar Rana; Waheed Akhtar; Syed Muhammad Jawad Zaidi
Journal:  J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect       Date:  2021-11-15

4.  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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.