HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Neville A G Solomon Remy C H Lim Parma Nand Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Solomon, N. A G Articles by Graham, K. J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Solomon, N. A G Articles by Graham, K. J Related Collections Valve disease

Tricuspid Valve Replacement: Bioprosthetic or Mechanical Valve?

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

For reprint information contact: Neville A G Solomon, MCh Tel: 64 21 030 3488 Fax: 64 9 630 9873 Email: nev_sheeba{at}yahoo.com 2/7, King George Ave, Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand.

Significant morbidity and mortality is associated with tricuspid valve replacement, and controversy still exists as to the ideal prosthesis in this position. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for low cardiac output and mortality, and whether bioprosthetic or mechanical valves perform better in the tricuspid position. Results of 121 tricuspid valve replacements in 104 patients between January 1966 and December 2002 were reviewed. Most patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Perioperative mortality was 19%. On multivariate analysis, age and preoperative jaundice were significant predictors of low cardiac output; age, jaundice, atrial fibrillation, and bypass time were significant predictors of mortality. Mechanical valves were significantly more prone to thromboembolism, whereas bioprostheses suffered structural valve deterioration. There were no significant differences in anticoagulation or bleeding episodes between the two groups, nor in valve-related events, deaths, and long term survival. There was no significant difference in performance so as to recommend one type over the other, but bioprosthetic valves may be more favorable as they fail predictably.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. J. Shemin Tricuspid Valve Disease Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 1111 - 1128. [Full Text]

				Y.-Q. Lai, X. Meng, T. Bai, C. Zhang, Y. Luo, and Z.-G. Zhang Edge-to-Edge Tricuspid Valve Repair: An Adjuvant Technique for Residual Tricuspid Regurgitation Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2006; 81(6): 2179 - 2182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Ikeda, Y. Okazaki, K. Furukawa, S. Ohtsubo, J. Yunoki, M. Natsuaki, and T. Itoh Direct imaging of bileaflet mechanical valve behavior in the tricuspid position. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 2006; 29(6): 1014 - 1019. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]