Objective: There is paucity of data on outcomes after isolated tricuspid valve surgery. This meta-analysis aims to compile available data on isolated tricuspid valve surgery and compare isolated tricuspid valve repair (iTVr) with isolated tricuspid valve replacement (iTVR) to elucidate outcomes after tricuspid valve surgery. Methods: A literature search of 6 databases was performed. The primary outcomes was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were early stroke, post-op pacemaker placement, and tricuspid reoperation within 5 years. Publication bias was explored using the funnel plot. Results: Ten retrospective studies involving 1407 patients (iTVr group = 779 patients and iTVR group = 628 patients) were included. A cumulative analysis demonstrated a significant difference favoring iTVr for 30-day mortality [odds ratio – 10 studies (95% confidence interval) 0.34 (0.18-0.66)]; 4.7% versus 12.6%, for iTVr and iTVR, respectively. Post-op pacemaker placement favored iTVr [odds ratio – 6 studies (95% confidence interval) 0.37 (0.18-0.77)]. Although stroke rates and TV reoperation favored iTVr, they did not reach statistical significance. No publication bias was identified. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates that iTVr has better 30-day mortality and fewer permanent pacemaker placements. Etiology and severity of TR, as well as careful patient selection remain the most important factors for optimal outcomes.

Objective: To describe experience with using intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography to reliably predict the size of the rapid deployment prosthetic valve by measuring the native aortic annulus Methods: Retrospective review of single institution series of patients undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with Rapid Deployement Bioprosthetic Valves. Included were patients that had their native aortic valve replaced either isolated or as part of any additional procedure. Aortic annulus was measured prior to initiation of the operation using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Correlation analysis was conducted between Echocardiographic annular measurements and actual implanted valve sizes. Results: Twenty five patients underwent rapid deployment valve implantation in the aortic position. Of these, 36% of patients had the same size valve as the measured aortic annulus, 48% of patients had a valve implanted that was 1 mm different, and 16% of patients had 2 mm difference. The mean annular size based was 22.4 mm (range: 21-28 mm). The mean valve size implanted was 23.3 mm (range: 21-27 mm). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean annular measurement and the valve size selected (0.9 mm , p = 0.8). Conclusion: TEE can further enhance valve sizing and guidance through a proper and safe deployment. Although evident in our experience, larger scale studies are needed to further elucidate conclusions on the importance of avoiding under-sizing valves.