A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band

Background: This study aims to compare three different tricuspidannuloplasty techniques using suture, ring, and band.Methods: Between January 2010 and December 2015, a total of 231consecutive patients (78 males, 153 females; mean age 50.3±15.9 years;range, 34 to 66 years) who underwent tricuspid valve annuloplasty usingthree different techniques were retrospectively analyzed. Tricuspidvalve r epair w as p erformed w ith d e Vega a nnuloplasty t echnique(n=62, 26.8%), flexible ring (n=76, 32.9%) or Teflon strip (n=93, 40.3%).Postoperative data including vital signs, echocardiographic reports,functional status, and the rate of re-do surgeries were recorded.Results: Cardiopulmonary bypass times were statistically significantlyshorter in the de Vega annuloplasty group (p<0.001). There was nosignificant difference among the groups in terms of the in-hospitalmortality. Late postoperative tricuspid regurgitation grades, systolicpulmonary artery pressure, and right atrial diameters showedsignificant improvements, compared to baseline, in ring and stripannuloplasty groups.Conclusion: Our study results demonstrate that suture-basedapproaches should be avoided. Instead of performing routinetricuspid ring annuloplasty, Teflon strip annuloplasty may beconsidered an alternative method in most cases, particularly dueto controversy in selection of true ring size and high cost of thissurgical material in the real-life setting.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kalp ve Kalp Damar Sistemi Cerrahi

Üç triküspid anüloplasti tekniğinin karşılaştırılması: Sütür, halka ve bant

Öz:

Amaç: Bu çalışmada sütür, halka ve bant ile üç farklı triküspid anüloplasti tekniği karşılaştırıldı. Çalışma planı: Ocak 2010 - Aralık 2015 tarihleri arasında, üç farklı teknik ile triküspid kapak anüloplastisi yapılan toplam 231 ardışık hasta (78 erkek, 153 kadın; ort. yaş 50.3±15.9 yıl, dağılım, 34 to 66 yıl) retrospektif olarak incelendi. Triküspid kapak tamiri de Vega anüloplasti tekniği (n=62, %26.8), esnek halka (n=76, %32.9) veya Teflon strip (n=93, %40.3) ile yapıldı. Vital bulgular, ekokardiyografi raporları, fonksiyonel statü ve yeniden cerrahi oranı dahil olmak üzere ameliyat sonrası veriler kaydedildi. Bulgular: Kardiyopulmoner baypas süreleri, de Vega anüloplasti grubunda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde daha kısa idi (p<0.001). Gruplar arasında hastane içi mortalite açısından anlamlı bir fark yoktu. Halka ve strip anüloplasti gruplarında geç ameliyat sonrası triküspid yetmezliği dereceleri, sistolik pulmoner arter basıncı ve sağ atriyum çapları başlangıca kıyasla anlamlı düzeyde düzelme gösterdi. Sonuç: Çalışma sonuçlarımız, sütür bazlı yaklaşımların terk edilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bilhassa uygun halka boyutunun seçimine ilişkin tartışmalar ve gerçek yaşamda bu cerrahi materyalin yüksek maliyeti nedeniyle, triküspid halka anüloplastinin rutin uygulanması yerine, birçok olguda Teflon strip anüloplasti alternatif bir yöntem olarak düşünülebilir.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kalp ve Kalp Damar Sistemi Cerrahi

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Cohn LH. Tricuspid regurgitation secondary to mitral valve disease: when and how to repair. J Card Surg 1994;9:237-41.
2. Tang GH, David TE, Singh SK, Maganti MD, Armstrong S, Borger MA. Tricuspid valve repair with an annuloplasty ring results in improved long-term outcomes. Circulation 2006;114:577-81.
3. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, Guyton RA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:57-185.
4. Dreyfus GD, Raja SG, John Chan KM. Tricuspid leaflet augmentation to address severe tethering in functional tricuspid regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008;34:908-10.
5. Ghanta RK, Chen R, Narayanasamy N, McGurk S, Lipsitz S, Chen FY, et al. Suture bicuspidization of the tricuspid valve versus ring annuloplasty for repair of functional tricuspid regurgitation: midterm results of 237 consecutive patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:117-26.
6. Rastan H. A simple method for tricuspid annuloplasty (author’s transl). Thoraxchir Vask Chir 1976;24:493-5. [Abstract]
7. Carpentier A, Deloche A, Hanania G, Forman J, Sellier P, Piwnica A, et al. Surgical management of acquired tricuspid valve disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1974;67:53-65.
8. De Vega NG. Selective, adjustable and permanent annuloplasty. An original technic for the treatment of tricuspid insufficiency. Rev Esp Cardiol 1972;25:555-6. [Abstract]
9. Braunwald NS, Ross J Jr, Morrow AG. Conservative management of tricuspid regurgitation in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement. Circulation 1967;35:63-9.
10. Duran CM, Pomar JL, Colman T, Figueroa A, Revuelta JM, Ubago JL. Is tricuspid valve repair necessary? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1980;80:849-60.
11. Dreyfus GD, Corbi PJ, Chan KM, Bahrami T. Secondary tricuspid regurgitation or dilatation: which should be the criteria for surgical repair? Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:127-32.
12. Izumi C, Miyake M, Takahashi S, Matsutani H, Hashiwada S, Kuwano K, et al. Progression of isolated tricuspid regurgitation late after left-sided valve surgery. Clinical features and mechanisms. Circ J 2011;75:2902-7.
13. Yilmaz O, Suri RM, Dearani JA, Sundt TM, Daly RC, Burkhart HM, et al. Functional tricuspid regurgitation at the time of mitral valve repair for degenerative leaflet prolapse: the case for a selective approach. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:608-13.
14. Navia JL, Brozzi NA, Klein AL, Ling LF, Kittayarak C, Nowicki ER, et al. Moderate tricuspid regurgitation with left-sided degenerative heart valve disease: to repair or not to repair? Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:59-67.
15. Filsoufi F, Anyanwu AC, Salzberg SP, Frankel T, Cohn LH, Adams DH. Long-term outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement in the current era. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:845-50.
16. Matsunaga A, Duran CM. Progression of tricuspid regurgitation after repaired functional ischemic mitral regurgitation. Circulation 2005;112(9 Suppl):I453-7.
17. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Barón- Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 2012;33:2451-96.
18. Singh SK, Tang GH, Maganti MD, Armstrong S, Williams WG, David TE, et al. Midterm outcomes of tricuspid valve repair versus replacement for organic tricuspid disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:1735-41.
19. Navia JL, Nowicki ER, Blackstone EH, Brozzi NA, Nento DE, Atik FA, et al. Surgical management of secondary tricuspid valve regurgitation: annulus, commissure, or leaflet procedure? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;139:1473-82.
20. Guenther T, Mazzitelli D, Noebauer C, Hettich I, Tassani-Prell P, Voss B, et al. Tricuspid valve repair: is ring annuloplasty superior? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;43:58-65.
21. Deloche A, Guerinon J, Fabiani JN, Morillo F, Caramanian M, Carpentier A, et al. Anatomical study of rheumatic tricuspid valve diseases: Application to the study of various valvuloplasties. Ann Chir Thorac Cardiovasc 1973;12:343-9. [Abstract]
22. Castedo E, Cañas A, Cabo RA, Burgos R, Ugarte J. Edge-to-Edge tricuspid repair for redeveloped valve incompetence after DeVega’s annuloplasty. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:605-6.
23. Morishita A, Kitamura M, Noji S, Aomi S, Endo M, Koyanagi H. Long-term results after De Vega’s tricuspid annuloplasty. NJ Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2002;43:773-7.
24. McCarthy PM, Bhudia SK, Rajeswaran J, Hoercher KJ, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al. Tricuspid valve repair: durability and risk factors for failure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;127:674-85.
25. Rivera R, Duran E, Ajuria M. Carpentier’s flexible ring versus De Vega’s annuloplasty. A prospective randomized study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1985;89:196-203.
26. Carrier M, Pellerin M, Guertin MC, Bouchard D, Hébert Y, Perrault LP, et al. Twenty-five years’ clinical experience with repair of tricuspid insufficiency. J Heart Valve Dis 2004;13:952-6.

APA	Lafçı G, Çiçek Ö, Lafci A, Esenboga K, GUNERTEM E, kadiroğulları e, ÇİÇEK M, DİKEN A, ÇAĞLI K (2019). A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. , 286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
Chicago	Lafçı Gökhan,Çiçek Ömer Faruk,Lafci Ayse,Esenboga Kerim,GUNERTEM EREN,kadiroğulları ersin,ÇİÇEK Mustafa Cüneyt,DİKEN Adem İlkay,ÇAĞLI Kerim A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. (2019): 286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
MLA	Lafçı Gökhan,Çiçek Ömer Faruk,Lafci Ayse,Esenboga Kerim,GUNERTEM EREN,kadiroğulları ersin,ÇİÇEK Mustafa Cüneyt,DİKEN Adem İlkay,ÇAĞLI Kerim A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. , 2019, ss.286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
AMA	Lafçı G,Çiçek Ö,Lafci A,Esenboga K,GUNERTEM E,kadiroğulları e,ÇİÇEK M,DİKEN A,ÇAĞLI K A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. . 2019; 286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
Vancouver	Lafçı G,Çiçek Ö,Lafci A,Esenboga K,GUNERTEM E,kadiroğulları e,ÇİÇEK M,DİKEN A,ÇAĞLI K A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. . 2019; 286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
IEEE	Lafçı G,Çiçek Ö,Lafci A,Esenboga K,GUNERTEM E,kadiroğulları e,ÇİÇEK M,DİKEN A,ÇAĞLI K "A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band." , ss.286 - 293, 2019. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
ISNAD	Lafçı, Gökhan vd. "A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band". (2019), 286-293. https://doi.org/10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474

APA	Lafçı G, Çiçek Ö, Lafci A, Esenboga K, GUNERTEM E, kadiroğulları e, ÇİÇEK M, DİKEN A, ÇAĞLI K (2019). A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi, 27(3), 286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
Chicago	Lafçı Gökhan,Çiçek Ömer Faruk,Lafci Ayse,Esenboga Kerim,GUNERTEM EREN,kadiroğulları ersin,ÇİÇEK Mustafa Cüneyt,DİKEN Adem İlkay,ÇAĞLI Kerim A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi 27, no.3 (2019): 286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
MLA	Lafçı Gökhan,Çiçek Ömer Faruk,Lafci Ayse,Esenboga Kerim,GUNERTEM EREN,kadiroğulları ersin,ÇİÇEK Mustafa Cüneyt,DİKEN Adem İlkay,ÇAĞLI Kerim A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi, vol.27, no.3, 2019, ss.286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
AMA	Lafçı G,Çiçek Ö,Lafci A,Esenboga K,GUNERTEM E,kadiroğulları e,ÇİÇEK M,DİKEN A,ÇAĞLI K A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi. 2019; 27(3): 286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
Vancouver	Lafçı G,Çiçek Ö,Lafci A,Esenboga K,GUNERTEM E,kadiroğulları e,ÇİÇEK M,DİKEN A,ÇAĞLI K A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi. 2019; 27(3): 286 - 293. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
IEEE	Lafçı G,Çiçek Ö,Lafci A,Esenboga K,GUNERTEM E,kadiroğulları e,ÇİÇEK M,DİKEN A,ÇAĞLI K "A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band." Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi, 27, ss.286 - 293, 2019. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474
ISNAD	Lafçı, Gökhan vd. "A comparison of three tricuspid annuloplasty techniques: Suture, ring, and band". Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi 27/3 (2019), 286-293. https://doi.org/10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.17474