Tricuspid valve replacement: bioprosthetic or mechanical valve?
Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann
; 12(2): 143-8, 2004 Jun.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-15213082
ABSTRACT
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.
Buscar no Google
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Valva Tricúspide
/
Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca
Tipo de estudo:
Etiology_studies
/
Incidence_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
Limite:
Adolescent
/
Adult
/
Aged
/
Child
/
Female
/
Humans
/
Male
/
Middle aged
País como assunto:
Oceania
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2004
Tipo de documento:
Article