Tricuspid valve replacement outcomes in a diverse variety of valve replacement cases

Abstract

Background: The initial trial in tricuspid surgery is repair; however, replacement is done whenever the valve is badly diseased. Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) as an isolated procedure and combined with other valve replacements presents a challenge as these patients are in the high-risk subset. Materials and Methods: The present retrospective study was performed using the medical records of 42 cases who underwent TVR since 2017 at our institute. The mean age of the participants was 36.3 ± 13.2 years and male–female was 66.7% and 33.3%, respectively. Isolated TVR was done in 35.7% of cases, associated with mitral valve replacement (MVR) in 38.1%, with aortic valve replacement (AVR) in 4.8%, triple-valve replacement (MV, TV, and AV) in 19.0%, and TVR associated with pulmonary valve replacement in 2.4% of cases. This diverse variety of valve replacement cases is the highlight of our study. About 30.9% of participants were undergoing the procedure as a redo surgery. Trial of repair was given in 33.3% of cases. Moreover, bioprosthesis and mechanical valve prosthesis were used in 73.8% and 26.2%, respectively. Results: Early mortality occurred in 8 (19.0%) cases. Cause of death common in all deaths was right ventricular failure in all cases 8/8 (100%) seconded by multi-organ failure in 7/8 cases (87.5%), previous cardiac surgery was a factor in 4/8 (50%) cases, mediastinitis occurred in 2/8 (25%) cases, and both arrhythmias and cerebrovascular accident happened in 1/8 (12.5%) case each. Mortality rate was 3/15 (20.0%) in cases of isolated TV surgery. Mortality rate for concomitant MVR was 3/15 (20.0%), and for concomitant AVR with MVR (triple-valve replacement) was 2/8 (25.0%). No early mortality happened in the concomitant AVR and concomitant pulmonary valve replacement group. Late mortality happened in 11/42 (26.2%) cases during follow-up. Total mortality as per the valve types has been 5/11 (45.5%) in the mechanical valve replacement group and 14/31 (45.2%) for the biological valve group. Conclusions: The patients who require TVR are usually high-risk surgical candidates with high early and late mortality. The most common cause of death was right ventricular failure in this study. TVR associated with other heart valve replacement increases the risk strata of the patient which is the highlight of our study. In the end, we conclude that we had 19.0% early (0–30 days) and 26.2% late mortality (0–1 year) making a composite of 45.2% mortality at the end of 1 year. No difference in the effect of mortality as per the valve type has been observed.