The better substitute for tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe isolated tricuspid regurgitation

OBJECTIVE: The ideal alternative for tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) in patients with severe isolated tricuspid regurgitation remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively investigate the outcomes of using bioprosthetic and mechanical valves at the tricuspid position. METHODS: A total of 98 consecutive patients without left-side cardiac disease or history of heart surgery who underwent first-time TVR between January 2010 and March 2017 at the West China Hospital, China were included in the study. Patient data, including all-cause death and need for tricuspid valve reoperation as the main end points, were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were enrolled into the study. The mean follow-up period was 43.3±21.9 (10–87) months. The mean age of the patients was 45.7±13.4 years. The study comprised 32.9% of male patients. During the follow-up period, 4, 3, 12, and 3 cases of death, reoperation, prosthesis dysfunctions, and prosthesis-related thrombosis were noted, respectively. Biological and mechanical valves were used in 56.6% and 43.4% of the patients, respectively. However, there was no significant difference between mechanical and biological valves with respect to echocardiographic date and survival, reoperation, prosthetic valve dysfunction, and thromboembolism rate. CONCLUSION: TVR is not a very high-risk procedure in patients with isolated tricuspid regurgitation, and the decision for prosthesis implantation in TVR should be made on an individual basis according to suitable clinical judgment.