Meta-analysis Comparing Mortality After Isolated Surgical Tricuspid Valve Repair versus Replacement

Safety and Outcomes of Reoperative Robotic Tricuspid Valve Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Reoperative surgery for isolated tricuspid valve (TV) pathology has been associated with high morbidity and mortality rates; however, the current guidelines recommend intervention for severe, symptomatic TV regurgitation or mild to moderate symptoms with progressive right ventricular dysfunction. There are minimal data regarding reoperative intervention for TV disease. Similarly, there are no large series describing robot-assisted reoperative TV surgery.

METHODS

Institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database data were used to identify patients with previous cardiac surgery undergoing robot-assisted TV surgery from 2017 to 2022 from 2 tertiary referral hospitals. Patient demographics, preoperative characteristics, disease progression, operative details, and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, length of stay, and adverse events. Descriptive and summative statistics were used to describe clinical data and examine differences in outcomes of patients with primary versus secondary etiology using bivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were divided into 2 arms, primary TV pathology and secondary dysfunction due to comorbid cardiac conditions. The overall mortality was 8.3%. Major complications, including respiratory failure, renal failure, and reoperation were 12.5%, 8.3%, and 8.3%, respectively. No permanent pacemakers were required, and the 30-day readmission rate was 4.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperative robotic TV surgery is a safe and viable alternative to traditional sternotomy for both primary and secondary TV pathology. TV repair and replacement are possible using the minimally invasive technique. The morbidity and mortality rates are acceptable when compared with traditional approaches with decreased need for pacemaker placement in the minimally invasive approach.

Transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention: to repair or to replace?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The burden of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is high in the aging population, almost 4% in the age group over 75 have moderate or more TR. This carries a poor prognosis and an increased incidence of mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and rehospitalization in symptomatic patients with severe TR is observed. Percutaneous tricuspid valve intervention has emerged as a viable therapeutic option, with an increasingly large toolbox of both tricuspid repair and replacement devices. The optimal strategy, timing and patient selection for transcatheter intervention are yet to be determined. This review focuses on the current strengths and limitations of transcatheter tricuspid repair vs. replacement, drawing on lessons learned from surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early outcome studies have been published in the last 2 years for many of the new percutaneous tricuspid valve devices. We have summarized these results and compared them to surgical tricuspid valve repair and replacement. We found that surgical data shows a tendency to better outcome with tricuspid valve repair compared to replacement. For transcatheter interventions studies comparing repair and replacement are lacking but both interventions show good procedural success rates and are efficient in reducing the grade of tricuspid regurgitation.

SUMMARY

Transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions offer a safe and effective alternative to tricuspid surgery or medical therapy. The decision between valve replacement and repair should be based on patient anatomy, operator experience and device availability until head-to-head comparison of different devices are available.