Tricuspid valve replacement with mechanical prostheses: Short and long-term outcomes

Outcomes of isolated tricuspid valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5,316 patients from 35 studies

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) is rapidly emerging as a therapeutic option amongst patients with secondary tricuspid regurgitation. Historical data from surgical tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) studies may serve as a benchmark for the development of TTVR trials.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to investigate the early and late outcomes following isolated surgical TVR.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched to identify studies on isolated surgical TVR. The prespecified primary endpoint was operative mortality; secondary endpoints were early and late outcomes. Overall estimates of proportions and incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Multiple sensitivity analyses accounting for baseline characteristics, country and the operative period were applied.  Results: A total of 35 studies (5,316 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The operative period ranged from 1974 to 2019. The overall rate of operative mortality was 12% (95% CI: 9-15), with higher mortality for patients who were operated on before 1995, who had prior cardiac surgeries, or who had liver disease. The most frequent clinical events were pacemaker implantation (10% [95% CI: 6-16]), bleeding (12% [95% CI: 8-17]), acute kidney injury (15% [95% CI: 9-24]) and respiratory complications (15% [95% CI: 12-20]). At follow-up analysis of the bioprosthetic TVR, there was an incidence rate per 100 person-years of 6 (95% CI: 2-13) for death and 8 (95% CI: 5-13) for recurrence of significant tricuspid regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides an overview of the historical clinical outcomes following isolated surgical TVR. These findings can support the development of future clinical trials in the tricuspid space by providing thresholds for clinical outcomes.

Which is the best prosthesis in an isolated or combined tricuspid valve replacement?

OBJECTIVES

METHODS

From January 1999 to December 2018, 338 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement. Patients were divided into an isolated group or a combined group according to whether their surgery was combined with a left heart valve surgery. Mechanical tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 142 patients (isolated group: 41 vs combined group: 101), and 196 patients underwent bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement (isolated group: 145 vs combined group: 51). Operative results, long-term survival and tricuspid valve-related events were compared.

RESULTS

Early mortality in the combined group was higher (n = 6, 4%) than that in the isolated group (n = 3, 2%), but no significant difference was observed between the mechanical and biological subgroups. In the isolated group, there was a higher event-free rate in the biological subgroup than in the mechanical subgroup (P = 0.042) and a similar result was also observed for patients without Ebstein’s anomaly (P = 0.039). In the combined group, no significant difference was observed (P = 0.98). Survival rates were similar between the mechanical and biological subgroups in both the isolated (P = 0.54) and combined (P = 0.81) groups. Mechanical valves in isolated tricuspid valve replacement were more prone to valve thrombosis and bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Every decision regarding tricuspid valve prostheses should be individualized, but biological prostheses may be an optimal choice for patients, especially for patients without Ebstein’s anomaly, in isolated tricuspid valve replacement.