4.6 Article

Treatment for severe functional tricuspid regurgitation: annuloplasty versus valve replacement

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 e21-e27

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu224

关键词

Tricuspid annuloplasty; Tricuspid valve replacement; Tricuspid regurgitation; Propensity score matching

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have compared the outcomes of mitral annuloplasty with those of mitral valve replacement in patients with functional mitral regurgitation. However, data comparing the results of tricuspid annuloplasty (TAP) with those of tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) in patients with functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR) have been scarce. We evaluated whether TAP was an optimal option for severe FTR. From 1996 to 2012, 175 patients (57 +/- 11 years old) underwent surgical correction for severe FTR. A total of 108 patients underwent TAP (the TAP group), and 67 underwent TVR (the TVR group). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis and propensity score matching with 37 patients in each group were performed to adjust for the baseline differences between the two groups. Early mortality occurred in 13 patients without any inter-group differences. There were 35 late mortalities, including 24 cardiac deaths. The 5- and 10-year freedom rates from cardiac death were 93.0 and 88.5%, respectively, in the TAP group, and 84.7 and 69.8%, respectively, in the TVR group. The IPTW-adjusted multivariable analysis revealed that the freedom rates from cardiac death were higher in the TAP group than in the TVR group (P = 0.01). In the propensity score-matched patients, the freedom rates from cardiac death and tricuspid valve-related event were higher in the TAP group than in the TVR group, although the difference was not statistically significant. TAP should be considered as a treatment of choice for patients with severe FTR because TVR has been associated with long-term cardiac death and valve-related events.

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