Tricuspid Valve Replacement: Mechanical or Biological Prostheses? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) is seldom performed in cardiac valve surgery, and there currently are no clinical guidelines as to which type of prostheses is better in tricuspid valve position. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the results of mechanical and biological prostheses for TVR. Methods: We searched the Pubmed, Cochrane, and Embase clinical trial databases to collect all related studies published from January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2020. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the odds ratios (OR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) of time-to-event related effects of the surgical procedures; every study’s quality was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: A total of 13 retrospective studies, including 1453 patients were analyzed. There were no statistically differences between mechanical and biological prostheses with respect to prosthetic valve failure [OR = 0.84, 95% CI(0.54, 1.28), P = .41], bleeding [OR = 0.84, 95% CI(0.54,1.28), P = .41], reoperation [OR = 1.02, 95% CI(0.58,1.78), P = .95], early mortality [OR = 1.35, 95% CI(0.82,2.25), P = .24] and long-time survival [OR = 1.09, 95% CI(0.70, 1.69), P = .70], but a significant difference can be seen in mechanical prostheses with a higher risk of thrombosis [OR = 0.17, 95% CI(0.05, 0.60), P = .006, I2 = 0%]. Conclusions: In tricuspid valve position, mechanical valve prostheses have a higher risk of thrombosis than biological prostheses, but no statistical differences between mechanical and biological prostheses with respect to prosthetic valve failure, bleeding, reoperation, early mortality, and long-term survival. The valve disease and patient’s age and risk factors are the most important considerations in the decision-making process. The more specific conclusion needs to be further proved by large-sample, multi-center, randomized, double-blind and control trials.