Abstract:The authors reported no conflicts of interest.The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. We read with interest the recent study by Patlolla and colleagues1Patlolla S.H. Saran N. Schaff H.V. Crestanello J. Pochettino A. Stulak J.M. et al.Prosthesis choice for tricuspid valve replacement: comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. July 7, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar that found that mechanical and bioprosthetic valves provide comparable survival, incidence of reoperation, and recovery of right ventricular systolic function and size after tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) in a large cohort with long-term follow-up. The authors also found that bioprosthetic valves develop significant tricuspid regurgitation over time and concluded that mechanical valves may have an advantage for younger patients and those needing anticoagulation. As we know, the frequency of TVR is significantly lower compared with aortic or mitral valve replacement. Thus, prosthesis choice for TVR is sometimes difficult due to limited evidence in this field and unclear recommendation in the guidelines.2Otto C.M. Nishimura R.A. Bonow R.O. Carabello B.A. Erwin III, J.P. Gentile F. et al.2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines.Circulation. 2021; 143: e72-e227PubMed Google Scholar,3Vahanian A. Beyersdorf F. Praz F. Milojevic M. Baldus S. Bauersachs J. et al.2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease.Eur Heart J. 2022; 43: 561-632Crossref PubMed Scopus (1180) Google Scholar A previous meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the terms of survival, reoperation, or prosthetic valve failure.4Liu P. Qiao W.H. Sun F.Q. Ruan X.L. Al Shirbini M. Hu D. et al.Should a mechanical or biological prosthesis be used for a tricuspid valve replacement? A meta-analysis.J Card Surg. 2016; 31: 294-302Crossref PubMed Scopus (40) Google Scholar Even so, Patlolla and colleagues1Patlolla S.H. Saran N. Schaff H.V. Crestanello J. Pochettino A. Stulak J.M. et al.Prosthesis choice for tricuspid valve replacement: comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. July 7, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar reported that 86% of patients in their large cohort received bioprosthetic valves. A similar preference for bioprosthetic valves was also seen in our cohort.5Chen J. Hu K. Ma W. Lv M. Shi Y. Liu J. et al.Isolated reoperation for tricuspid regurgitation after left-sided valve surgery: technique evolution.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020; 57: 142-150Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar, 6Chen J. Ma W. Ming Y. Wang W. Liu S. Yang Y. et al.Minimally invasive valve replacement for late tricuspid regurgitation after left-sided valve surgery.Ann Thorac Surg. 2021; 111: e381-e383Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 7Chen J. Abudupataer M. Hu K. Maimaiti A. Lu S. Wei L. et al.Risk factors associated with perioperative morbidity and mortality following isolated tricuspid valve replacement.J Surg Res. 2018; 221: 224-231Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar The mechanism for prosthetic valve failure in bioprosthetic and mechanical TVR is totally different. Structural valve degeneration is for the former, whereas valve thrombosis is for the latter. It is worth noting that the rate of surgical reoperation is significantly lower than the rate of prosthetic valve failure, mainly because patients or surgeons may hesitate about reoperation, considering the very high risk in these fragile patients. This was also supported by the data from the current study. The overall predicted probability of moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation at 6 and 9 years postoperatively was 20% and 21%, respectively. However, the cumulative incidence of reoperation for the entire cohort at 5 and 10 years was only 2.6% and 3.7%, respectively, and it was comparable in both groups.1Patlolla S.H. Saran N. Schaff H.V. Crestanello J. Pochettino A. Stulak J.M. et al.Prosthesis choice for tricuspid valve replacement: comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. July 7, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar Before the emergence of the transcatheter valve-in-valve technique, surgical reoperation was the unique way to treat tricuspid prosthetic valve failure. The first-in-human transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve (TVIV) was reported in 2011.8Van Garsse L.A. Ter Bekke R.M. van Ommen V.G. Percutaneous transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in stenosed tricuspid valve bioprosthesis.Circulation. 2011; 123: e219-e221Crossref PubMed Scopus (57) Google Scholar, 9McElhinney D.B. Aboulhosn J.A. Dvir D. Whisenant B. Zhang Y. Eicken A. et al.Mid-term valve-related outcomes after transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve or valve-in-ring replacement.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73: 148-157Crossref PubMed Scopus (65) Google Scholar, 10Viotto G. Paim L. Souza R. Aprígio J. Lacerda L. Pomerantzeff P. et al.Early outcomes of transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation: a case series.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019; 29: 59-63Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar Since then, TVIV has been reported to be a minimally invasive alternative to high-risk redo surgery in selected patients with degenerated tricuspid bioprosthesis.11Sanon S. Cabalka A.K. Babaliaros V. Rihal C. Gafoor S. Webb J. et al.Transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring implantation for degenerated surgical prosthesis.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12: 1403-1412Crossref PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar In the current guidelines, a bioprosthetic valve is recommended for patients >65 years of age undergoing aortic or mitral valve replacement, and bioprosthetic valves can be considered for patents 50 to 65 years of age undergoing aortic valve replacement.2Otto C.M. Nishimura R.A. Bonow R.O. Carabello B.A. Erwin III, J.P. Gentile F. et al.2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines.Circulation. 2021; 143: e72-e227PubMed Google Scholar We noticed that the mean age was 57.4 years in the mechanical TVR group and 68.5 years in the bioprosthetic TVR group in the authors’ study.1Patlolla S.H. Saran N. Schaff H.V. Crestanello J. Pochettino A. Stulak J.M. et al.Prosthesis choice for tricuspid valve replacement: comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. July 7, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar In our previous study, the mean age of patients receiving bioprosthetic TVR was 57.8 years.6Chen J. Ma W. Ming Y. Wang W. Liu S. Yang Y. et al.Minimally invasive valve replacement for late tricuspid regurgitation after left-sided valve surgery.Ann Thorac Surg. 2021; 111: e381-e383Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar Considering that the survival expectancy in these patients was limited, as the overall survival at 5 and 10 years was only 50% and 31%,1Patlolla S.H. Saran N. Schaff H.V. Crestanello J. Pochettino A. Stulak J.M. et al.Prosthesis choice for tricuspid valve replacement: comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. July 7, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar and the availability of TVIV technique, whether the threshold of age for bioprosthetic valve in tricuspid valve position could be lower than that in the aortic or mitral valve position? Given that structural valve degeneration of bioprosthetic valve can be treated by TVIV, will the long-term prognosis be better in the bioprosthetic TVR group than in mechanical TVR group? More data are required to answer this critical question.

Comparative analysis of structural valve deterioration after bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement: Bovine pericardial versus porcine valves.

Tricuspid Valve Replacement: An Analysis of Risk Factors and Outcomes

The Impact of Bicuspid Aortic Valve on Long-term Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement

Long-Term Outcomes of Tricuspid Valve Replacement With Mechanical Versus Tissue Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Comparison study of left ventricular reverse remodeling after transcatheter aortic valve replacement of bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis

[Structural Deterioration of a Bovine Pericardial Valve in a Tricuspid Position 14 Years Postoperatively;Report of a Case]

Prosthesis Choice for Tricuspid Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Valve-in-valve Technique

Comparison of outcomes between transcatheter tricuspid valve repair and surgical tricuspid valve replacement or repair in patients with tricuspid insufficiency

Outcomes after implantation of right-sided mechanical valve prostheses in congenital heart disease

Tricuspid valve replacement with mechanical versus biological prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves

Bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacement for tricuspid valve endocarditis secondary to infected endocardial pacemaker leads

Risk Factors Associated with Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality Following Isolated Tricuspid Valve Replacement.

Transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valves: an updated meta-analysis

National Estimates for the Percentage of All Readmissions With Demographic Features, Morbidity, Overall and Gender-Specific Mortality of Transcutaneous Versus Open Surgical Tricuspid Valve Replacement/Repair

Three-year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis.

Long-term outcomes following aortic valve replacement in bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves

Abstract 13931: Comparison of Inpatient Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: An Insight From National Inpatient Sample

Abstract 8803: Bioprosthetic Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation Associated with Device Lead Implantation

Five-year Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with a Novel Bovine Pericardial Bioprosthesis.

Abstract 11678: Tricuspid Valve Repair Versus Replacement for Very Severe Functional Tricuspid Regurgitation