Tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses: Long-term results and causes of valve dysfunction

Background. Although the clinical performance of bioprostheses after valve replacement in the aortic and mitral position has been reported, little is known of the performance of tricuspid bioprostheses. The mechanism of biopr osthetic valve dysfunction after tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) is not c lear. Methods. We reviewed 98 eases of TVR with bioprostheses. To clarify the cau ses of valve dysfunction, pathologic examination of the explanted valve at the reoperation was performed. Results. Actuarial survival at 18 years was 68.7% +/- 5.8%. There were 12 r edo TVRs. In six of the 12 cases, isolated redo TVR was performed. In the o ther cases, concomitant cardiac procedures were performed. The causes of pr osthetic valve dysfunction were pannus formation on the cusps of the right ventricle side (four cases), native valve attachment (two cases), pannus fo rmation + native valve attachment (two eases), sclerotic change (one case), pannus formation + sclerotic change (one case), and native valve attachmen t + valve infection (one case). Freedom from reoperation, structural valve deterioration, and nonstructural dysfunction at 18 years was 62.7% +/- 10.7 %, 96.0% +/- 1.9%, and 76.7% +/- 8.3%, respectively. Conclusions. In our 18 years of experience, although the survival after TVR with bioprostheses is acceptable, the reoperation free rate is not satisfa ctory. Pannus formation on the cusps of the ventricular side seems to be a serious problem that causes bioprosthetic dysfunction in the tricuspid posi tion. (Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:105-9) (C) 2001 by The Society of Thoracic S urgeons.