4.6 Article

Management of tricuspid regurgitation in congenital heart disease: Is survival better with valve repair?

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.034

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Tricuspid valve (TV) regurgitation in congenital heart disease includes a heterogeneous group of lesions, and few series have documented the outcomes. Methods: We reviewed the records of 553 patients with congenital heart disease who had undergone TV surgery for tricuspid regurgitation from January 1993 to December 2010. Patients with Ebstein malformation were excluded. Their mean age was 32 +/- 21 years, and 300 were female (54%). The most common diagnoses were conotruncal anomaly in 216 patients (39%), previous ventricular septal defect closure in 83 (15%), atrioventricular septal defect in 77 (14%), and pulmonary atresia with an intact ventricular septum in 11 (2%). Preoperative right-sided heart failure was present in 124 patients (22%), and 55 patients (10%) had pulmonary hypertension. Results: TV repair was performed in 442 (80%) and TV replacement in 111 (20%) patients. Repeat sternotomy was performed in 415 patients (75%). Previous TV repair was present in 44 patients (8%); of these, 17 (38.6%) underwent repeat TV repair. The overall early mortality was 3.1%(17 patients) and was 2.5% for TV repair and 5.4% for TV replacement (P = .001). The mean follow-up period was 4.5 +/- 4.1 years (maximum, 18). The overall survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 97%, 93%, and 85%, respectively. Survival was better for patients with repair than with replacement. TV repair was an independent predictor of better survival (P = .001). Conclusions: Important tricuspid regurgitation can occur with a variety of congenital diagnoses. Early mortality is low and late survival is superior with tricuspid repair than with valve replacement. Surgical treatment of tricuspid regurgitation in congenital heart disease should be performed before the onset of heart failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据