Why the study?
This study aimed to show the outcomes of isolated tricuspid valve replacement after left-sided valve surgery.
Does bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement compared to mechanical tricuspid valve replacement improve outcomes in patients undergoing isolated tricuspid valve replacement after left-sided valve surgery?
Does bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement compared to mechanical tricuspid valve replacement improve outcomes in patients undergoing isolated tricuspid valve replacement after left-sided valve surgery?
The choice between bioprosthetic and mechanical tricuspid valves in patients undergoing isolated tricuspid valve replacement after left-sided valve surgery does not significantly affect 30-day mortality, early complications, or long-term survival.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to show the outcomes of isolated tricuspid valve replacement (ITVR) after left-sided valve surgery (LSVS). METHODS: Patients who underwent ITVR after LSVS were divided into bioprosthetic tricuspid valve (BTV) and mechanical tricuspid valve (MTV) groups. Clinical data were collected and analyzed between groups. RESULTS: 101 patients were divided into BTV (n = 46) and MTV (n = 55) groups. The mean ages of the BTV and MTV groups were 63.4 ± 8.9 and 52.4 ± 7.6 years, respectively (P <0.01). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (BTV 10.9% vs. MTV 5.5%), early postoperative complications, and long-term tricuspid valve (TV)-related adverse events between these two groups. New-onset renal insufficiency was an independent risk factor for early mortality. Survival rates in the BTV group were 94.8% ± 3.6%, 86.5% ± 6.5%, and 54.2% ± 17.6% and in the MTV group were 96.0% ± 2.8%, 79.0% ± 7.4%, and 59.4% ± 14.8% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively (P = 0.826). CONCLUSION: The TV prosthesis selection in ITVR after LSVS seems to not affect 30-day mortality and early postoperative complications. Long-term survival and the occurrence of TV-related events were also comparable between these two groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuan et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: