Home > Journals > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Past Issues > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2018 August;59(4) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2018 August;59(4):626-32

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  CARDIAC SECTION 

The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2018 August;59(4):626-32

DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.18.10392-2

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Tricuspid valve replacement: results of an orphan procedure - which is the best prosthesis?

Dominik WIEDEMANN 1 , Veronika RUPPRECHTER 1, Julia MASCHERBAUER 2, Andreas KAMMERLANDER 2, Bruno MORA 3, Kamen DIMITROV 1, Benedikt WEBER 4, Martin ANDREAS 1, Günther LAUFER 1, Alfred KOCHER 1

1 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 2 Department of Cardiology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 3 Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 4 Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria


PDF


BACKGROUND: Replacement of the tricuspid valve is uncommon. Prostheses specifically designed for this position are not available. Bovine, porcine as well as mechanical valve prostheses are currently used, however, the most suitable prosthesis type has not been defined.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) at the Medical University of Vienna from 1996 to 2014. Baseline patient characteristics, prosthesis type, and postoperative outcome data were collected.
RESULTS: A total of 58 patients underwent TVR. Forty-one patients (71%) received biological (18 bovine, 23 porcine), and 17 patients (29%) mechanical prostheses. One-year survival (70.2% vs. 76.5%, P=0.18), and freedom from reoperation at one year (86.3% vs. 94.1%, P=0.35) was not significantly different bioprostheses and mechanical valves. Freedom from reoperation rates for bovine versus porcine prostheses (one-year: 88.2% vs. 84.4%, P=0.145) were also not significantly different. However, three bovine prosthesis had to be reoperated due to high-grade central regurgitation without any signs of endocarditis or structural valve degeneration.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of clinical trials on tricuspid valve replacement and no specific guidelines for the choice of prosthesis. In the current study we have not identified significant differences in mortality between mechanical and biological valves. However, bovine prostheses seem less suitable for the tricuspid position due to the high closing volume with consecutive severe postoperative regurgitation.


KEY WORDS: Tricuspid valve insufficiency - Heart valve prosthesis implantation

top of page