• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.328-334
• /
• 2004

There are only limited numbers of reports about long-term results of tricuspid valve replacement(TVR) with bioprosthetic and mechanical prostheses. We analyzed risk factors for tricuspid valve replacement and compared long-term clinical results of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in tricuspid position. Material and Method: We reviewed 77 cases of TVR, which were performed between October 1978 and December 1996. Mean age was 38.8 15.9 years. Bioprostheses were implanted in 26 cases and mechanical prostheses were implanted in 51 cases. Result The operative mortality was 15.6% and late mortality was 12.3%. Survival for bioprosthetic and mechanical valve group at 5, 10 and 13 years was 81.3% vs. 100%, 66.1% vs. 100%, 60.6% vs. 100% (p=0.0175). Free from valve related re-operation for bioprosthetic and mechanical valve group at 5, 10 and 13 years was 100% vs. 93.9%, 100% vs. 93.9% and 58.3% vs. 93.9% (p=0.3274). Linealized incidences of valve related re-operation for bioprosthetic and mechanical valve group was 2.27 %/patient-years and 1.10 %/patient-years. Risk factor analysis showed that presence of preoperative ascites, hepatomegaly larger than 2 finger breaths, poor preoperative NYHA functional class and number of tricuspid valve replacement were risk factors for early mortality, and the use of bioprosthetic valve and number of open heart surgery were risk factors for late mortality. Conclusion: Long-term survival of mechanical valve was superior to bioprosthetic valve in tricuspid position. We recommend mechanical valve in tricuspid position if the patient can be closely followed up.