Mechanical Valve Replacement Versus Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement in the Tricuspid Valve Position. Issue 3 (12th March 2013) - Cho, Won‐Chul
Abstract 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)