Tricuspid valve replacement: bioprosthetic or mechanical valve?
|
| Abstract |
Significant morbidity and mortality is associated with tricuspid valve replacement, and controversy still exists as to the ideal prosthesis in this position. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for low cardiac output and mortality, and whether bioprosthetic or mechanical valves perform better in the tricuspid position. Results of 121 tricuspid valve replacements in 104 patients between January 1966 and December 2002 were reviewed. Most patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Perioperative mortality was 19%. On multivariate analysis, age and preoperative jaundice were significant predictors of low cardiac output; age, jaundice, atrial fibrillation, and bypass time were significant predictors of mortality. Mechanical valves were significantly more prone to thromboembolism, whereas bioprostheses suffered structural valve deterioration. There were no significant differences in anticoagulation or bleeding episodes between the two groups, nor in valve-related events, deaths, and long term survival. There was no significant difference in performance so as to recommend one type over the other, but bioprosthetic valves may be more favorable as they fail predictably.
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Neville A G Solomon, Remy C H Lim, Parma Nand, Kenneth J Graham |
| Journal | Asian cardiovascular & thoracic annals (Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann) Vol. 12 Issue 2 Pg. 143-8 (Jun 2004) ISSN: 0218-4923 [Print] England |
| PMID | 15213082 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Journal Article) |
| Topics |
|
Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!