Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population-level data are limited regarding contemporary practice and outcomes of isolated tricuspid operations. We evaluated this using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. METHODS: We identified 14,704 isolated tricuspid operations from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2020. After excluding patients with endocarditis, tricuspid stenosis, emergent/emergent salvage status, previous heart transplants, and missing tricuspid operation type, 6507 patients remained. Endpoints were operative mortality and composite major comorbidities (permanent stroke, renal failure, prolonged ventilation > 24 hours, deep sternal wound infection, cardiac reoperations, and new permanent pacemaker implantation). RESULTS: Isolated tricuspid operations increased from 2012 (983 cases) to 2019 (2155 cases, P < .001). Median annual center volume was 2 cases (range, 1-81). In the final cohort (n = 6507; median age, 65 years; 38.5% men), 40% had New York Heart Association class III/IV heart failure and 24% had nonelective operations. The operative mortality was 7.3% (1.7% in patients without these risk factors), and new permanent pacemaker implant rate was 10.8%. In the multivariable analysis, factors associated with operative mortality included New York Heart Association class III/IV heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.57), nonelective operations (OR, 1.91), tricuspid replacement (OR, 1.56), annual center volume ≤ 5 cases (OR, 1.37), and higher model for end-stage liver disease scores (all P < .05). Beating heart operation was associated with a lower adjusted risk of pacemaker implant (OR, 0.69), renal failure (OR, 0.75), and blood transfusions (OR, 0.8) compared with full cardioplegic arrest (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated tricuspid repair was associated with lower adjusted mortality and morbidities than replacement. Beating heart operation was associated with lower adjusted major morbidities. The preoperative model for end-stage liver disease scores may identify high-risk patients, and early referral to higher volume centers may help improve outcomes.