Editorial comment: Lessons learned with tricuspid valve replacement

Prosthetic cardiac valves: history and review of cardiac prostheses clinically available in Japan

Recently developed prosthetic valves are reliable and essential for the treatment of valvular heart disease. The mechanical valve evolved remarkably following the introduction of pyrolite carbon material, which enabled the creation of a bileaflet form incorporated with a pivot mechanism. The improved durability of the biological valve is attributed mainly to the development of a tissue fixation process and anti-calcification treatments. However, optimal antithrombogenicity and durability have not yet been achieved for either prosthetic valve type. To select the most suitable prosthetic valve for each individual patient from among the many clinically available prosthetic valves, it is necessary to have a thorough understanding of the characteristics of each valve.

Reappraisal of mechanical tricuspid valve replacement in the current era: a single center retrospective study

Background

This study aimed to investigate the early and late outcomes of mechanical tricuspid valve replacement (mTVR).

Methods

We evaluated 113 patients (82 women; median age, 53 years) who underwent mTVR between 1995 and 2017. Based on a history of cardiac surgery, patients were divided into primary (n=42) and reoperative mTVR (n=71) groups. The median follow-up duration was 12.7 years in primary and 9.3 years in reoperative mTVR, respectively (P=0.045).

Results

Patients in the reoperative group were older (54 vs. 46 years; P=0.007) and showed higher central venous pressure (16±6 vs. 13±6 mmHg; P=0.002) than the primary group. Early mortality occurred in 2 patients in the reoperative group (2 vs. 0; P=0.529). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the primary and reoperation groups (15-year survival rate: 86% vs. 78%; P=0.215). The independent risk factors of overall survival were age [P<0.001; hazard ratio (HR), 1.11; 95% confidential interval (CI), 1.05–1.18], left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 40% (P=0.001; HR, 5.1; 95% CI, 2.21–28.2), and central venous pressure over 20 mmHg (P=0.016; HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.28–10.7). Overall survival did not differ between the age groups (<60 vs. 60–70 years) in the reoperative group (P=0.772). Tricuspid valve thrombosis occurred in 8 patients (7 primary, 1 reoperative; P=0.004).

Conclusions

The incidence of tricuspid valve thrombosis was significantly higher in the primary mTVR group compared with the reoperative mTVR group. The patients who underwent mTVR at a relatively young age showed good early and late outcomes in both groups.