Key result
Tricuspid valve repair shows similar long-term survival and valve-related events compared to replacement.
Why the study?
Long-term outcomes after tricuspid valve repair versus replacement adjusted for right ventricular volume and function were unclear.
Does tricuspid valve repair improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation?
Cohort (n=147)
Does tricuspid valve repair improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation?
p-value: p=0.236
Tricuspid valve repair and replacement yield comparable long-term outcomes in severe tricuspid regurgitation, though repair may offer a marginal survival benefit in patients with preserved right ventricular function.
Supports individualized choice of repair or replacement; leaves open randomized confirmation in tricuspid surgery.
Background This study aimed to compare long-term outcomes after tricuspid valve (TV) repair (TVr) with those after TV replacement (TVR) by adjusting the right ventricular (RV) volume and function. Methods We enrolled 147 patients who underwent TVr (n = 78) and TVR (n = 69) for grade 3 or 4 tricuspid regurgitation and had preoperative cardiac magnetic resonance data. Long-term clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with preserved and dysfunctional RV (ejection fraction < 50%). Results There were no significant differences in operative mortality or postoperative complications between the two groups before and after the IPTW adjustment. Five- and 10-year overall survival rates were 84.2 and 67.1%, respectively. Five- and 10-year cumulative incidences of TV-related events (TVREs) were 33.1 and 55.6%, respectively. There were no significant differences in overall survival and cumulative incidence of TVREs after IPTW adjustment (p = 0.236 and p = 0.989, respectively). The risk-adjusted overall survival was marginally higher in the TVr group of patients with preserved RV function (p = 0.054), while no such significant difference was found between the two groups of patients with dysfunctional RV (p = 0.513). Conclusion Adjusted long-term clinical outcomes after TVr and TVR were comparable. TVr might be beneficial for patients with preserved RV function in terms of long-term survival; however, this benefit might disappear in patients with RV dysfunction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Grade 3 or 4 tricuspid regurgitation (n=147). Tricuspid valve repair (TVr) vs. Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) was evaluated on Overall survival (p=0.236). Tricuspid valve repair and replacement yielded comparable adjusted long-term overall survival (P=0.236) and cumulative incidence of tricuspid valve-related events (P=0.989).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: