Premium
Mechanical Valve Replacement Versus Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement in the Tricuspid Valve Position
Author(s) -
Cho WonChul,
Park Chong Bin,
Kim Joon Bum,
Jung SungHo,
Chung Cheol Hyun,
Choo Suk Jung,
Lee Jae Won
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of cardiac surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.428
H-Index - 58
eISSN - 1540-8191
pISSN - 0886-0440
DOI - 10.1111/jocs.12093
Subject(s) - medicine , mechanical valve , cardiology , propensity score matching , tricuspid valve , surgery
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)