Tricuspid Valve Replacement: Mechanical or Biological Prostheses? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Keywords:tricuspid valve replacement
Background: Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) is seldom performed in cardiac valve surgery, and there currently are no clinical guidelines as to which type of prostheses is better in tricuspid valve position. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the results of mechanical and biological prostheses for TVR.
Methods: We searched the Pubmed, Cochrane, and Embase clinical trial databases to collect all related studies published from January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2020. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the odds ratios (OR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) of time-to-event related effects of the surgical procedures; every study’s quality was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
Results: A total of 13 retrospective studies, including 1453 patients were analyzed. There were no statistically differences between mechanical and biological prostheses with respect to prosthetic valve failure [OR = 0.84, 95% CI(0.54, 1.28), P = .41], bleeding [OR = 0.84, 95% CI(0.54,1.28), P = .41], reoperation [OR = 1.02, 95% CI(0.58,1.78), P = .95], early mortality [OR = 1.35, 95% CI(0.82,2.25), P = .24] and long-time survival [OR = 1.09, 95% CI(0.70, 1.69), P = .70], but a significant difference can be seen in mechanical prostheses with a higher risk of thrombosis [OR = 0.17, 95% CI(0.05, 0.60), P = .006, I2 = 0%].
Conclusions: In tricuspid valve position, mechanical valve prostheses have a higher risk of thrombosis than biological prostheses, but no statistical differences between mechanical and biological prostheses with respect to prosthetic valve failure, bleeding, reoperation, early mortality, and long-term survival. The valve disease and patient’s age and risk factors are the most important considerations in the decision-making process. The more specific conclusion needs to be further proved by large-sample, multi-center, randomized, double-blind and control trials.
Altaani HA, Jaber S. 2013. Tricuspid Valve Replacement, Mechnical vs. Biological Valve, Which Is Better? Int Cardiovasc Res J. 7(2):71-4.
Calafiore AM, Iaco AL, Romeo A, et al. 2011. Echocardiographicbased treatment of functional tricuspid regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 142: 308–13.
Chang BC, Lim SH, Yi G, et al. 2006. Long-term clinical results of tricuspid valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 81-(4):1317–1323, discussion 23–4.
Cho WC, Park CB, Kim JB, et al. 2013. Mechanical valve replacement versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in the tricuspid valve position. J Card Surg. 28(3):212-7.
Connolly HM, Schaff HV, Abel MD, et al. 2015. Early and Late Outcomes of Surgical Treatment in Carcinoid Heart Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 66(20):2189-96.
Dearani JA. 2014. Editorial comment: lessons learned with tricuspid valve replacement. eur J Cardiothorac surg. 45:90-1.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, et al. 1991. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet (London, England). 337(8746):867-72.
Filsoufi F, Anyanwu AC, Salzberg SP, et al. 2005. Long-term outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement in the current era. Ann Thorac Surg. 80:845–50.
Garatti A, Nano G, Bruschi G, et al. 2012. Twenty-five years outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement comparing mechanical and biologic prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 93(4):1146-53.
González-Santos JM, Arnáiz-García ME. 2013. Correcting tricuspid regurgitation: an unresolved issue. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 66: 609–12.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. 2003. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 327(7414):557-60.
Hwang HY, Kim KH, Kim KB, et al. 2012. Mechanical tricuspid valve replacement is not superior in patients younger than 65 years who need long-term anticoagulation. Ann Thorac Surg. 93(4):1154-60.
Hwang HY, Kim KH, Kim KB, et al. 2014. Propensity score matching analysis of mechanical versus bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacements. Ann Thorac Surg. 97(4):1294-9.
Hwang HY, Kim KH, Kim KB, et al. 2016. Reoperations after tricuspid valve repair: re-repair versus replacement. J Thorac Dis. 8(1):133-9.
Kaplan M, Kut MS, Demirtas MM, et al. 2002. Prosthetic replacement of tricuspid valve: Bioprosthetic or mechanical. Ann Thorac Surg. 73: 467–73.
Liang W, Yue H, Li T, et al. 2019. The better substitute for tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe isolated tricuspid regurgitation. Anatol J Cardiol. 22(4):172-6.
Liu P, Qiao WH, Sun FQ, et al. 2016. Should a Mechanical or Biological Prosthesis Be Used for a Tricuspid Valve Replacement? A Meta-Analysis. J Card Surg. 31(5):294-302.
Mao B, Sun L, Zhang J, et al. 2016. Perioperative factors associated with short- and long-term outcomes after tricuspid valve replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 23(6):845-50.
McCarthy PM, Bhudia SK, Rajeswaran J, et al. 2004. Tricuspid valve repair: durability and risk factors for failure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 127: 674–85.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, BMJ 339. b2535.
Nakano K, Ishibashi-Ueda H, Kobayashi J, et al. 2001. Tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses: long-term results and causes of valve dysfunction. Ann Thorac Surg. 71:105–9.
Nickenig G, Kowalski M, Hausleiter J, et al. 2017. Transcatheter treatment of severe tricuspid regurgitation with the edge-to-edge MitraClip technique. Circulation. 135:1802–14.
Péterffy A, Szentkirályi I. 2001. Mechanical valves in tricuspid position: cause of thrombosis and prevention. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 19:735–6.
Ratnatunga CP, Edwards MB, Dore CJ, et al. 1998. Tricuspid valve replacement: UK Heart Valve Registry mid-term results comparing mechanical and biological prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 66:1940–7.
Redondo Palacios A, López Menéndez J, Miguelena Hycka J, et al. 2017. Which type of valve should we use in tricuspid position? Long-term comparison between mechanical and biological valves. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 58(5):739-46.
Rizzoli G, De Perini L, Bottio T, et al. 1998. Prosthetic replacement of the tricuspid valve: biological or mechanical? Ann Thorac Surg. 66(Suppl):62–7.
Rizzoli G, Vendramin I, Nesseris G, et al. 2004. Biological or mechanical prostheses in tricuspid position? A meta-analysis of intra-institutional results. Ann Thorac Surg 77(5):1607–14.
Rodríguez-Capitán J, Gómez-Doblas JJ, Fernández-López L, et al. 2013. Short- and long-term outcomes of surgery for severe tricuspid regurgitation. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 66(8):629-35.
Rosser BA, Taramasso M, Maisano F. 2016. Transcatheter interventions for tricuspid regurgitation: TriCinch (4Tech). EuroIntervention. 12:Y110–2.
Songur CM, Simsek E, Ozen A, et al. 2014. Long-term results comparing mechanical and biological prostheses in the tricuspid valve position: which valve types are better--mechanical or biological prostheses? Heart Lung Circ. 23: 1175-8.
Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, et al. 2012. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). eur heart J. 33:2451-96.
Van Nooten GJ, Caes FL, Franc¸ois KJ, et al. 1995. The valve choice in tricuspid valve replacement: 25 Years of experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 9:441–6. Discussion 446–7.
Wiedemann D, Rupprechter V, Mascherbauer J, et al. 2018. Tricuspid valve replacement: results of an orphan procedure - which is the best prosthesis? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 59(4):626-32.
How to Cite
Author Disclosure & Copyright Transfer Agreement
In order to publish the original work of another person(s), The Heart Surgery Forum® must receive an acknowledgment of the Author Agreement and Copyright Transfer Statement transferring to Forum Multimedia Publishing, L.L.C., a subsidiary of Carden Jennings Publishing Co., Ltd. the exclusive rights to print and distribute the author(s) work in all media forms. Failure to check Copyright Transfer agreement box below will delay publication of the manuscript.
A current form follows:
The author(s) hereby transfer(s), assign(s), or otherwise convey(s) all copyright ownership of the manuscript submitted to Forum Multimedia Publishing, LLC (Publisher). The copyright transfer covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article and the material contained therein throughout the world in all languages and in all media of expression now known or later developed, including but not limited to reprints, photographic reproduction, microfilm, electronic data processing (including programming, storage, and transmission to other electronic data record(s), or any other reproductions of similar nature), and translations.
However, Publisher grants back to the author(s) the following:
- The right to make and distribute copies of all or part of this work for use of the author(s) in teaching;
- The right to use, after publication in The Heart Surgery Forum, all or part of the material from this work in a book by the author(s), or in a collection of work by the author(s);
- The royalty-free right to make copies of this work for internal distribution within the institution/company that employs the author(s) subject to the provisions below for a work-made-for-hire;
- The right to use figures and tables from this work, and up to 250 words of text, for any purpose;
- The right to make oral presentations of material from this work.
Publisher reserves the right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. To republish, such third parties must obtain written permission from the Publisher. (This is in accordance with the Copyright Statute, United States Code, Title 17. Exception: If all authors were bona fide officers or employees of the U.S. Government at the time the paper was prepared, the work is a “work of the US Government” (prepared by an officer or employee of the US Government as part of official duties), and therefore is not subject to US copyright; such exception should be indicated on signature lines. If this work was prepared under US Government contract or grant, the US Government may reproduce, royalty-free, all or portions of this work and may authorize others to do so, for official US Government purposes only, if the US Government contract or grant so requires.
I have participated in the conception and design of this work and in the writing of the manuscript and take public responsibility for it. Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my authorship has been published, has been submitted for publication elsewhere, or will be submitted for publication elsewhere while under consideration by The Heart Surgery Forum, except as described in an attachment. I have reviewed this manuscript (original version) and approve its submission. If I am listed above as corresponding author, I will provide all authors with information regarding this manuscript and will obtain their approval before submitting any revision. I attest to the validity, accuracy, and legitimacy of the content of the manuscript and understand that Publisher assumes no responsibility for the validity, accuracy, and legitimacy of its content. I warrant that this manuscript is original with me and that I have full power to make this Agreement. I warrant that it contains no matter that is libelous or otherwise unlawful or that invades individual privacy or infringes any copyright or other proprietary right. I agree to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless of and from any claim made against Publisher that relates to or arises out of the publication of the manuscript and agree that this indemnification shall include payment of all costs and expenses relating to the defense of any such claim, including all reasonable attorney’s fees.
I warrant that I have no financial interest in the drugs, devices, or procedures described in the manuscript (except as disclosed in the attached statement).
I state that the institutional Human Subjects Committee and/or the Ethics Committee approved the clinical protocol reported in this manuscript for the use of experimental techniques, drugs, or devices in human subjects and appropriate informed consent documents were utilized.
Furthermore, I state that any and all animals used for experimental purposes received humane care in USDA registered facilities in compliance with the “Principles of Laboratory Animal Care” formulated by the National Society for Medical Research and the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” prepared by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 85-23, revised 1985).