4.6 Article

Reoperations after tricuspid valve repair

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 130, Issue 2, Pages 498-503

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.12.044

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective was to analyze the short- and long-term results of patients with previous tricuspid valve repair who had valve dysfunction and required cardiac reoperations. Methods: Between 1976 and 2002, 74 patients with a mean age of 53.8 +/- 12.2 years underwent valve reoperations for dysfunction of previous tricuspid valve repair. Mitral and tricuspid lesions were diagnosed in 40 patients (54%), triple valve disease (mitral, aortic, tricuspid) was diagnosed in 26 patients (35.1%), isolated tricuspid disease was diagnosed in 6 patients (8.1%), and aortic and tricuspid lesions were diagnosed in 2 patients (2.7%). Reoperations included tricuspid valve replacement in 43 patients (58.1%) and a new tricuspid valve repair procedure in the remaining 31 patients (41.9%). Results: Hospital mortality (30-day or within first admission) was 35.1% (n = 26). In the multivariate analysis, risk factors for hospital mortality included body mass index less than 20 kg/m(2) and greater than 24 kg/m(2), triple valve disease, use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, and presence of postoperative complications. The follow-up was complete in 100% of patients, with a mean follow-up of 14.2 years (range 4 months to 26 years). The late mortality was 40.5% (n = 30). Predictors of late mortality were body mass index less than 20 kg/m(2), cardiac surgery before 1991, and development of dysfunction early after tricuspid valve repair. At the follow-up closing date, 19 patients are alive (25.7%). The actuarial survival was 11.8% +/- 4.9% at 26 years. Conclusions: Patients with failure of a tricuspid valve repair procedure requiring reoperation have a poor prognosis with a high mortality rate both in-hospital and in the long-term.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available