ISSN : 1301-5680
e-ISSN : 2149-8156
Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery     
Comparison of aortic cross-clamping versus beating heart surgery in tricuspid valve repair
Ali İhsan Hasde, Evren Özçınar, Mehmet Çakıcı, Çağdaş Baran, Mustafa Bahadır İnan, Levent Yazıcıoğlu, Sadık Eryılmaz, Ahmet Rüçhan Akar
1Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Medicine Faculty of Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
DOI : 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2018.16229
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of tricuspid valve repair using aortic cross-clamping versus using beating heart surgery.

Methods: A total of 208 patients (67 males, 141 females; mean age 61.5±9.2 years; range, 29 to 81 years) who underwent concomitant cardiac surgery and tricuspid valve repair between January 2007 and January 2016 at a single center were included. Two surgical strategies for tricuspid valve repair with aortic cross-clamping (n=102) or on beating heart (n=106) were compared. Primary endpoints were in-hospital mortality and the rate of permanent pacemaker placement after surgery. Secondary endpoints were cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, postoperative inotropic support, temporary pacemaker requirement, and residual tricuspid regurgitation at discharge and at one year.

Results: Overall hospital mortality was 7% (n=14) (cross-clamping 7% vs. beating heart 7%; p>0.05). The mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the aortic cross-clamping group (p=0.0001). Also, a higher number of patients in this group needed inotropic support (78/102) than the beating heart group (57/106) (p<0.05). The rate of postoperative left bundle branch block was higher in the cross-clamping group (14% vs. 5%, respectively; p<0.05). The rate of permanent pacemaker placement was also significantly higher in the cross-clamping group than the beating heart group (11.8% vs. 2.8%, respectively; p<0.05). At discharge, residual >2 tricuspid regurgitation was more commonly seen in the cross-clamping group (16% vs. 3%, respectively; p=0.0023). At one year of follow-up, residual >2 tricuspid regurgitation was present in 22 patients (23%) in the aortic crossclamping group and in eight patients (8%) in the beating heart group (p=0.0048).

Conclusion: Tricuspid valve repair on beating heart offers less inotropic support and a lower rate of postoperative permanent pacemaker placement requirement and residual tricuspid regurgitation, although both techniques yield similar postoperative clinical outcomes. These results support the use of tricuspid valve repair on a beating heart in concomitant left-sided valvular heart surgery.

Keywords : Aortic cross-clamping; beating heart; tricuspid regurgitation; tricuspid valve repair
Viewed : 457
Downloaded : 248