Should the tricuspid valve be replaced with a mechanical or biological valve?

34Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether patients requiring tricuspid replacement should have a mechanical or a biological valve. Using the reported search, 561 papers were identified. Thirteen papers represented the best evidence on the subject. The author, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, weaknesses, results and study comments were tabulated. We conclude that there are no major differences between the insertion of a mechanical or biological tricuspid valve. Aggregating the available data it is found that the reoperation rate is similar with bioprosthetic degeneration rate being equivalent to the mechanical thrombosis rate. Conversely up to 95% of patients with a bioprosthesis still receive anticoagulation. Survival in over 1000 prostheses pooled by meta-analysis was equivalent between biological and mechanical valves. © 2007 Published by European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kunadian, B., Vijayalakshmi, K., Balasubramanian, S., & Dunning, J. (2007). Should the tricuspid valve be replaced with a mechanical or biological valve? Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, 6(4), 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2007.159277

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free