Tricuspid Valve Replacement, Mechnical vs. Biological Valve, Which Is Better?

Abstract

Background: The initial trial in tricuspid surgery is repair; however, replacement is done whenever the valve is badly diseased. Tricuspid valve replacement comprises 1.7% of all tricuspid valve surgeries.

Materials and methods: The present retrospective study was performed using the medical records of 21 cases who underwent tricuspid valve replacement from January 2002 until the end of December 2010. The mean age of the participants was 52.3±8.8 years and 66.7% were females. In addition, tricuspid valve replacement was associated with mitral valve surgery, aortic valve surgery, and both in 14.3%, 4.8%, and 33.3% of the cases, respectively. Yet, isolated tricuspid valve replacement and redo surgery were performed in 10 cases (47.6%) and 8 cases (38.1%), respectively. Besides, trial of repair was done in 14 cases (66.7%). Moreover, biological and mechanical valves were used in 76.2% and 23.8% of the patients, respectively.

Results: According to the results, early mortality was 23.8% and one year survival was 66.7%. Moreover, early mortality was caused by right ventricular failure, multiorgan failure, medistinitis, and intracerbral bleeding in 42%, 28.6%, 14.3%, and 14.3% of the cases, respectively. In addition, 57.1% of the deaths had occurred in the cases where the biological valve was used, while 42.9% of the deaths had taken place where the mechanical one was utilized.

Conclusions: The patients who require tricuspid valve replacement are usually high risk surgical candidates with early and long term mortality. The findings of the current study showed no significant hemodynamic difference between mechanical and biological valves.