Mechanical Valve Replacement Versus Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement in the Tricuspid Valve Position |
| |
| Authors: | Won‐Chul Cho MD Chong Bin Park MD Joon Bum Kim MD Sung‐Ho Jung MD Cheol Hyun Chung MD Suk Jung Choo MD Jae Won Lee MD |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, , Gangneung, Korea;2. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, , Seoul, Korea |
| |
| Abstract: | Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and risk of tricuspid valve replacements and to compare bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves. Methods Between 1991 and 2009, 104 consecutive patients (71 women; mean age, 57 ± 10.8 years) with tricuspid valvular disease underwent mechanical TVR (mechanical group; n = 59) or bioprosthetic TVR (bioprosthesis group; n = 45). Follow‐up was complete in 97.1% (n = 101) with a median duration of 49.9 months (range 0–230 months). Results Hospital mortality after mechanical TVR and bioprosthetic TVR was not different on adjusted analysis by propensity score. Ten‐year actuarial survival after mechanical and bioprosthetic TVR was 83.9 ± 7.6% and 61.4 ± 9.1%, respectively (p = 0.004). However, there was also no significant difference in terms of adjusted analysis by propensity score (p = 0.084). No statistically significant difference was detected between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in regard to event‐free survival. Conclusions Mechanical TVR is not inferior to bioprosthetic TVR in terms of occurrence of valve‐related events, especially anticoagulation‐related complications. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12093 (J Card Surg 2013;28:212–217) |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
