A novel approach to tricuspid valve replacement: the upside down stentless aortic bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) is a rarely needed operation. Choices between mechanical and biological prosthesis still generate controversy. We present our initial clinical experience with a stentless aortic root placed inverted in the tricuspid annulus. METHODS Between August 2000 and September 2003, TVR for severe tricuspid insufficiency was performed in 8 patients. Indications were infective endocarditis (7) and iatrogenic damage (1). Mean age was 42.2 years old (20 to 58 years old). Five patients were male and 3 patients had a concomitant procedure (mitral valvuloplasty, coronary bypass grafting, and aortic valve replacement). A stentless aortic root, size 27 mm (n = 5) or 29 mm (n = 3) was placed inverted in the tricuspid position after the valsalva sinuses were scalloped. Interrupted 4-0 polypropylene sutures were used between the tricuspid valve annulus and the sewing ring. The struts equivalent on the stentless valve were anchored to the septal, anterior and posteroinferior wall of the right ventricle using 5-0 PTFE pledgeted sutures. RESULTS Hospital survival was 100% and mean hospital stay was 12.5 days (3 to 18 days). Intraoperative and follow-up echocardiograms revealed no stenosis or insufficiency. Mean follow-up was 17.2 months (1-38 months). There were 3 late deaths due to continued IV drug use (n = 2) and end-stage renal failure (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS This is a novel surgical alternative for a very high risk population. Potential advantages over current options include minimization of blood contact with nonbiological surfaces, preservation of annular motion, freedom from anticoagulation, and a theoretical lower rate of calcification.

[1]  C. Duran,et al.  Unstented semilunar homograft replacement of tricuspid valve in Ebstein's malformation. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[2]  C. Guglielmi,et al.  Biological or mechanical prostheses in tricuspid position? A meta-analysis of intra-institutional results. , 2004, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[3]  H. Ishibashi-Ueda,et al.  Tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses: long-term results and causes of valve dysfunction. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[4]  G. Thiene,et al.  Prosthetic replacement of the tricuspid valve: biological or mechanical? , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[5]  R. Arnold,et al.  Tricuspid valve replacement using an unstented pulmonary homograft. , 1988, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  T. Itoh,et al.  Direct imaging of the tricuspid valve annular motions by fiberoptic cardioscopy in dogs with tricuspid regurgitation. II. Does flexible ring annuloplasty preserve the annular motions? , 1992, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[7]  J. Miro,et al.  Management of persistent tricuspid endocarditis with transplantation of cryopreserved mitral homografts. , 1994, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[8]  G Thiene,et al.  Multivariate analysis of survival after malfunctioning biological and mechanical prosthesis replacement. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[9]  M. di Summa,et al.  Successful orthotopic transplantation of a fresh tricuspid valve homograft in a human. , 1993, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[10]  C. Doré,et al.  Tricuspid valve replacement: UK Heart Valve Registry mid-term results comparing mechanical and biological prostheses. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  W. Jamieson,et al.  Tricuspid valve replacement: porcine bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  C. Tatooles,et al.  Prosthetic replacement of the tricuspid valve. , 1965, Surgical forum.

[13]  A. Arbulu,et al.  Tricuspid valvulectomy without replacement. Twenty years' experience. , 1991, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[14]  N. D'attellis,et al.  Partial mitral homograft for tricuspid valve repair. , 1997, Annals of Thoracic Surgery.