Early and long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic versus mechanical tricuspid valve replacement: A nationwide population-based study.

OBJECTIVES

We compared early and long-term clinical outcomes of bioprosthetic versus mechanical tricuspid valve replacement in a nationwide study based on the database from the National Health Insurance Service.

METHODS

Of 1425 patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement from 2003 to 2018, 1241 patients were enrolled after excluding retricuspid valve replacement, complex congenital heart disease, Ebstein anomaly, and age less than 18 years at operation. Bioprostheses (group B) and mechanical prostheses (group M) were used in 562 patients (45.3%) and 679 patients (54.7%), respectively. The median follow-up duration was 5.6 years. Propensity score matching was performed. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients aged 50 to 65 years.

RESULTS

There was no difference in operative mortality or postoperative complications between the groups. All-cause mortality was higher in group B (7.8 vs 4.6 per 100 patient-years, hazard ratio, 1.75, 95% confidence interval, 1.33-2.30, P < .001). The cumulative incidence of stroke was higher in group M (hazard ratio, 0.65, 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.99, P = .043), whereas the cumulative incidence of reoperation was higher in group B (hazard ratio, 4.20, 95% confidence interval, 1.53-11.54, P = .005). In terms of the age-dependent hazard of all-cause mortality, group B demonstrated a higher hazard than group M below the age of 75 years, and it was statistically significant between 54 and 65 years of age. In the subgroup analysis, all-cause mortality was also higher in group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical tricuspid valve replacement demonstrated higher long-term survival than bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement. In particular, mechanical tricuspid valve replacement showed significantly higher overall survival between 54 and 65 years of age.