Outcome of patients undergoing isolated tricuspid repair or replacement surgery

OBJECTIVES: The interest in isolated tricuspid valve disease has rapidly increased recently. However, clinical trials and registry data are rare in the surgical literature. This study aimed to describe the early and long-term outcomes of a real-world experience in isolated tricuspid procedures comparing repair and replacement strategies. METHODS: The Surgical-Tricuspid study is a multicentre retrospective study that enrolled adult patients who had undergone isolated tricuspid valve surgery at 13 international sites. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare repair versus replacement. RESULTS: A cohort of 426 patients was enrolled [mean age: 55 (16) years; 56% female]. After matching, 175 comparable pairs were analysed. Preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 55(9) vs 56(9) (P = 0.8) while moderate-severe tricuspid regurgitation was present in 95% of cases. The 30-day mortality rate was 4.0% vs 8.0% in the repair and replacement groups, respectively (P = 0.115). The rates of reexploration for bleeding (6.9% vs 13.1% P = 0.050), permanent pacemaker implantation (5.1% vs 12.0%; P = 0.022) and blood transfusion (46% vs 62%; P = 0.002) were higher in the replacement group. Cumulative survival rates at 3, 5 and 7 years in the repair group were 84 (3)%, 75 (4)% and 56 (9)% vs 71 (4)%, 66 (5)% and 58 (5)% in the replacement group (P= 0.001) while cumulative incidence for reoperation at 10 years did not differ between groups [repair 10 (1)% vs replacement 9 (1 )%; P = 0.469]. CONCLUSIONS: The data from the Surgical-Tricuspid study reported a high risk for patients undergoing tricuspid surgery. Isolated valve repair offered reduced early and late mortality with no difference regarding reoperation rate when compared with replacement.

Automated summary

This study retrospectively analyzed the early and long-term outcomes of isolated tricuspid valve surgery, and found that repair surgery had lower early and late mortality rates compared to replacement surgery, with no difference in reoperation rates.