Prosthesis choice for tricuspid valve replacement: Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes

Abstract

ObjectivesThere is limited evidence evaluating valve function and right heart remodeling after tricuspid valve replacement (TVR), as well as whether the choice of prosthesis has an impact on these outcomes. MethodsWe reviewed 1043 consecutive adult patients who underwent first-time TVR; 33% had previous aortic and/or mitral valve operations. Severe tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR) was the indication for surgery in 94% patients. A mechanical valve was used in 149 (14%) patients and a bioprosthetic valve in 894 (86%). Concomitant major cardiac procedures were performed in 57% of patients. ResultsThe median age of the cohort was 68.8 (range, 25-94) years, and 57% were female. Overall survival at 5 and 10 years was 50% and 31%, respectively. Adjusted survival and cumulative incidence of reoperation after TVR were similar in patients with bioprosthetic and mechanical valves. Overall, right ventricular (RV) function and dilation improved postoperatively with the estimated proportion of patients with moderate or greater RV systolic dysfunction/dilatation decreasing by around 20% at 3 years follow-up. After adjusting for preoperative degree of dysfunction/dilatation, valve type had no effect on late improvement in RV function and dilation. Bioprosthetic TVR was associated with greater rates of recurrence of moderate or greater TR over late follow-up. Overall, a slight decline in tricuspid valve gradients was observed over time. ConclusionsMechanical and bioprosthetic valves provide comparable survival, incidence of reoperation, and recovery of RV systolic function and size after TVR. Bioprosthetic valves develop significant TR over time, and mechanical valves may have an advantage for younger patients and those needing anticoagulation.