Key result
Bioprosthetic TVR is linked to ~57% long-term freedom from reintervention, with structural degeneration rising late.
Why the study?
Long-term evidence about bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement was scarce.
What are the long-term clinical outcomes and risks of structural valve degeneration in patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses?
Cohort (n=675)
Yes
What are the long-term clinical outcomes and risks of structural valve degeneration in patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses?
Tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses is effective but associated with high early and long-term mortality, with the risk of structural valve degeneration rising significantly after 10 years.
Bioprosthetic TVR durability concerns after 10 years warrant surveillance; leaves open optimal valve selection in tricuspid disease.
OBJECTIVES: Long-term evidence about bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement is scarce. This study aims to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective study included patients from 10 high-volume centres in 7 different countries, who underwent tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses. Echocardiographic and clinical data were reviewed. Long-term outcomes were investigated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, Cox regression, and competing risk analysis. RESULTS: Of 675 patients, isolated tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 358 patients (53%), while 317 (47%) underwent concomitant procedures. Between these 2 groups, patients who underwent combined procedures reported a significantly higher incidence of infection, atrioventricular block, multi-organ failure, longer intensive care unit and hospital stay and higher 30-day mortality over patients who underwent isolated procedure. The overall 30-day mortality occurred in 70 patients (10.4%) [46 (14.6%) combined vs 24 (6.74%) isolated, P = 0.001]. During the follow-up, there was a continuous rate of attrition due to death, with cumulative incidences of death at 5, 10 and 15 years being 27.2%, 46.2% and 60.6%, respectively. In contrast, the risk of reintervention starts to significantly increase after 10 years of follow-up, with cumulative incidences of reintervention being 6.1%, 10.8% and 23.3%, respectively. Freedom from tricuspid valve reintervention, pacemaker implantation, tricuspid valve endocarditis and major thromboembolic events at 15 years were 56.5%, 77.3%, 84.0% and 86.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses is an effective treatment for valvular disease, despite being associated with relatively high early and long-term mortality. However, the risk of structural valve degeneration rises significantly after 10 years.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piperata et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Tricuspid valve disease (n=675). Bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement was evaluated on Freedom from tricuspid valve reintervention at 15 years. Bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement was associated with a 15-year freedom from reintervention of 56.5% and a 15-year overall survival of 28.9%, with the risk of structural valve degeneration rising significantly after 10 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: