English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

OBJECTIVES The debate concerning the optimal choice of tricuspid position continues. We compared the long-term results of mechanical and biological prostheses in patients who underwent isolated or combined tricuspid valve replacement, at 2 major cardiac surgical centres in central China. 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.

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