Key result
Tricuspid valve replacement linked to ~74% higher in-hospital mortality versus repair for severe TR.
Why the study?
Does isolated tricuspid valve repair reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity compared to tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe secondary tricuspid regurgitation?
Observational (n=1,364)
Yes
Does isolated tricuspid valve repair reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity compared to tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe secondary tricuspid regurgitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 12% vs 6.9%
p-value: p=0.009
In patients undergoing isolated surgery for severe secondary tricuspid regurgitation, tricuspid valve repair is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and reduced need for permanent pacemakers compared to valve replacement.
May favor repair to lower in-hospital risks in isolated tricuspid surgery; leaves open need for randomized confirmation in secondary TR.
Background: Comparative outcome data on tricuspid valve repair (TVr) versus tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) for severe secondary tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are limited. Methods: We used a national inpatient sample to assess in-hospital morbidity and mortality, length of stay and cost in patients with severe secondary TR undergoing isolated TVr versus TVR. Results: A total of 1364 patients (national estimate=6757) underwent isolated tricuspid valve surgery during the study period, of whom 569 (41.7%) had TVr and 795 (58.3%) had TVR. There was no difference in the prevalence of major morbidities between the two groups, except for liver disease and hepatic cirrhosis, which were more common in the TVR group. Before propensity matching, in-hospital mortality was similar between patients who underwent isolated TVr and TVR (8.1% vs 10.8%, p=0.093), but the incidence of postoperative morbidities differed: TVR was associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and blood transfusion, while TVr was associated with more acute kidney injury. After rigorous propensity score matching, TVR was associated with significantly higher rates of in-hospital death (12% vs 6.9%, p=0.009) and permanent pacemaker implantation (33.7% vs 11.2%, p<0.001). Postoperative morbidities and length of stay, however, were not different between the two groups. Nonetheless, cost of hospitalisation was 16% higher in the TVr group. Conclusions: In patients undergoing isolated surgery for secondary TR, TVR is associated with higher in-hospital mortality and need for permanent pacemaker compared with TVr. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of the type of surgery on the short-term and long-term mortality in this complex undertreated population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alkhouli et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Severe secondary tricuspid regurgitation (n=1,364). Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) vs. Tricuspid valve repair (TVr) was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (p=0.009). Tricuspid valve replacement for severe secondary tricuspid regurgitation was associated with higher in-hospital mortality compared to valve repair (12% vs 6.9%, p=0.009).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: