Comparison between mitral valve repair and replacement in active infective endocarditis

Surgery for Active Infective Endocarditis on Mitral Valve: Anatomical, Surgical, and Disease Factors as Long-Term Outcome Modifiers

Background and Objectives: Determinants of long-term outcomes after surgery for native mitral valve endocarditis have not been thoroughly investigated. The aim of this study was to assess anatomical, disease, and surgical risk factors for long-term mortality and need of reintervention, in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery for active endocarditis. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for active native mitral valve endocarditis at three academic centres, between 2000 and 2022, were analysed. The primary outcome was long-term survival. The secondary outcome was the freedom from mitral reoperation. Survival curves were constructed with Kaplan-Meier methodology. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify demographic, anatomical, disease, and surgical factors associated with late mortality and reoperation. Results: 335 consecutive patients with active mitral endocarditis were analysed. Two hundred and one patients (70.5%) had infection confined to the valve cusp whereas 89 (25.6%) had invasive disease extended to the annulus and surrounding tissues. Preoperative neurological events occurred at the diagnosis in 52 cases. Streptococci were the most common causative organisms followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and Enterococcus. Valve repair was performed in 108 patients (32.2%). Survival at 5 and 10 years was 70.1% and 59.2%, respectively. Staphylococcus emerged as an independent predictor of late mortality, along with age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous cardiac surgery. Survival was considerably reduced in patients with S. aureus compared with those without (log rank p < 0.001). The type of surgery (repair vs. replacement) did not emerge as a risk factor for late mortality and reoperation. Seventeen patients underwent mitral reoperation during the follow-up. The 5- and 10-year freedom from reoperation was 94.7% and 91.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Active mitral valve endocarditis remains a life-threatening disease with impaired survival. While lesion characteristics influenced surgical decision-making and intraoperative management, their impact on long-term survival and freedom from reintervention appears to be moderated by other factors such as infecting pathogens and patient comorbidities.

Choice of valve substitutes

Infective endocarditis often necessitates surgical intervention, and the choice of valve substitute remains a topic of controversy and highly debatable due to the wide range of available options and recent technical advancements. This manuscript reviews the different valve substitutes in the context of infective endocarditis, including mechanical and bioprosthetic valves, homografts, xenografts, and tissue-engineered valves. The patient's age, sex, demographic location, intellectual quotient, comorbidities, available options, and the experience of the surgeon should all be taken into consideration while choosing the best valve substitute for that individual. While valve repair and reconstruction are preferred whenever feasible, valve replacement may be the only option in certain cases. The choice between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves should be guided by standard criteria such as age, sex, expected lifespan, associated comorbidities, and anticipated adherence to anticoagulation therapy and accessibility of medical facilities for follow-up. For patients with severe chronic illness or a history of intracranial bleeding or associated hematological disorders, the use of mechanical prostheses may be avoided. Homografts and bioprosthetic valves provide an alternative to mechanical valves, thereby decreasing the necessity for lifelong anticoagulation after surgery and diminishing the likelihood of bleeding complications. The manuscript also discusses specific valve substitutes for different heart valves (aortic, mitral, pulmonary, tricuspid positions) and highlights emerging techniques such as the aortic valve neocuspidization (Ozaki procedure) and tissue-engineered valves. Ultimately, the ideal valve substitute in IE should be evidence based on a comprehensive elucidation of clinical condition of the patient and available options.

To repair or to replace in mitral valve infective endocarditis? an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Valve infective endocarditis (IE) is a potentially life-threatening condition that affects patients' livelihoods. Current surgical options in mitral valve IE include mitral valve repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR). While each procedure boasts its merits, doubt remains as to which type of surgery is superior.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane literature databases for studies comparing MVR and MVr in mitral valve IE. Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational studies that compare MVR vs. MVr in mitral valve IE were eligible. Our dichotomous outcomes were extracted in the form of event and total, and risk and hazard ratio (RR)(HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and were pooled and calculated using RevMan 5.0.

RESULTS

Our study included 23 studies with a total population of 11,802 patients. Compared to MVR, MVr had statistically significant lower risks of both early mortality with RR [0.44; 95% CI, 0.38-0.51; p < 0.001] and long-term follow-up mortality with HR [0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85; p = 0.0004]. Moreover, MVr was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of IE recurrence with RR [0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58; p < 0.001]; however, no statistically significant differences between both groups in terms of re-operations with RR [0.83; 95% CI, 0.41-1.67; p = 0.60].

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that MVr was superior in terms of in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and risk of recurrence without significance in valve reoperation. Therefore, MVr is appropriate as a primary treatment choice and should be considered whenever possible in most IE patients.

Surgical repair and replacement for native mitral valve infective endocarditis

AIMS

The clinical benefits of mitral valve repair over replacement in the setting of mitral infective endocarditis are not clearly established.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent cardiac surgery for infective endocarditis over a 20-year period (2001-2021) at two cardiac centres were reviewed. Among them, 282 patients underwent native mitral valve surgery and were included in the study. Nearest-neighbour propensity-score matching was performed to account for differences in patients' profile between the repair and replacement subgroups.

RESULTS

Mitral valve replacement was performed in 186 patients, while in 96 cases patients underwent mitral valve repair. Propensity match analysis provided 89 well matched pairs. Mean age was 60 ± 15 years; 75% of the patients were male. Mitral valve replacement was more commonly performed in patients with involvement of both mitral leaflets, commissure(s) and mitral annulus. Patients with lesion(s) limited to P2 segment formed the majority of the cases undergoing mitral valve repair. There was no difference in terms of microbiological findings. In-hospital mortality was 7% with no difference between the repair and the replacement cohorts. Survival probabilities at 1, 5 and 10 years were 88%, 72% and 68%, respectively after mitral repair, and 88%, 78% and 63%, respectively after mitral replacement (log-rank P  = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Mitral valve repair was more commonly performed in patients with isolated single leaflet involvement and provided good early and 10-year outcomes. Patients with annular disruption, lesion(s) on both leaflets and commissure(s) were successfully served on early and mid-term course by mitral valve replacement.

Mitral valve surgery in acute infective endocarditis: long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement

AIMS

Timing and surgical strategies in acute infective endocarditis are still questionable. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVR) compared with mitral valve replacement [mitral valve prosthesis (MVP)] for acute infective endocarditis.

METHODS

From 2004 to 2019, 109 consecutive patients with acute mitral valve infective endocarditis were retrospectively investigated. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical strategy: MVR 53/109 (48.6%) versus MVP 56/109 (51.4%). Primary end points were in-hospital mortality and overall survival at 10 years. Secondary end point was the freedom from infective endocarditis relapse.

RESULTS

Our institutional surgical approach for infective endocarditis allowed us to achieve MVR in 48.6% of patients. Hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups [MVR: 1/53 (1.9%) versus MVP: 2/56 (3.6%), P  = 1.000]. Overall 10-year survival was 80.0 ± 14.1 and 77.2 ± 13.5% for MVR and MVP, respectively ( P  = 0.648). MVR showed a lower incidence of infective endocarditis relapse compared with MVP (MVR: 93.6 ± 7.1 versus MVP: 80.9 ± 10.8%, P  = 0.041). At Cox regression, infective endocarditis relapse was an independent risk factor for death (hazard ratio 4.03; 95% confidence interval 1.41-11.52; P  = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The tendency to postpone surgery in stable patients with mitral infective endocarditis allowed achievement of MVR in almost 50% of patients. Although repair remains the approach of choice in our institution, no differences between MVR and MVP were reported in terms of early/late survival. However, MVP had a higher incidence of infective endocarditis relapse that represents an independent risk of mortality.

Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve plasty or replacement in patients with infectious endocarditis: A meta-analysis

Background

For degenerative mitral disease, more and more evidences support that mitral valve plasty (MVP) has much better clincial outcomes than mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the advantages of MVP in patients suffering from infectious endocarditis (IE) are unclear. To evaluate the appropriateness of MVP in IE patients, we conducted this meta-analysis. Based on the difference between active and healed phase, we not only compared the result of patients with IE, but also identified the subgroup with active IE.

Methods

We systematically searched the clinical trials comparing clinical outcomes of MVP and MVR in patients suffering from IE. Relevant articles were searched from January 1, 2000 to March 18, 2021 in Pubmed and Cochrane Library. Studies were excluded if they were with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score less than 6 or lacking of direct comparisons between MVP and MVR.

Results

23 studies were involved and 25,615 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed fewer adverse events and early or long-term death in the MVP group. However, more reoperations existed in this patient group. And the reinfection rate was close between two groups. Similar results were observed after identifying active IE subgroup, but there is no difference in the freedom from reoperation due to all-events.

Conclusions

Although limitimations exited in this study, patients suffering from IE can benefit from both MVP and MVR. For surgeons with consummate skills, MVP can be the preferred choice for suitable IE patients.

Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Therapy, and Management of Infective Endocarditis, and Its Complications

Infective endocarditis in the adult is life-threatening. Bacterial endocarditis is an inner infection lining the heart muscle (endocardium). The scientific study of the causes of diseases is known as etiology. The agents that cause disease fall into five groups: bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fungi, and helminths (worms). Risk factors are past heart defects, damaged or abnormal heart valves, new valves after surgery, chronic hemodialysis, and immunosuppressed state (chemotherapy, HIV, etc.). Infective endocarditis is categorized into two clinical forms: bacterial acute and subacute endocarditis. Acute bacterial endocarditis is usually caused by staphylococci (staph) and streptococci (strep). And occasionally by listeria and brucella bacterial strains. Invasive medical technology has increased the responsibility of healthcare-associated infective endocarditis (HAIE). Microscopy of the disease is the chronic aggressive cells in the deeper zone of nonspecific, composed of fibrin and platelets covering colonies of bacteria. Tuberculous valvular endocarditis due to mycobacterium tuberculosis is a rare clinical entity. Syphilitic endocarditis is pathologically the cutaneous lesions of secondary syphilis. It is caused by infection with the microorganismTreponema pallidum. Fungal endocarditis is a rare and fatal condition. They are infected with fungi such as Candida albicans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Aspergillus species. Fatal endocarditis associated with Q fever (query fever). Q fever is a chronic or prolonged disease caused by the rickettsial-like bacillus Coxiella burnetii, a rare form of rickettsia in the endocarditis. Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) infection causes chronic and repeated febrile illness. They are followed by pharyngitis, malaise, and a vesicular rash. Chronic Q fever usually manifests as endocarditis or hepatitis. The therapy given to simplify the complications is antimicrobial therapy. The medicines prescribed are ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, gentamicin, vancomycin, metronidazole, and tobramycin. High medicinal antibiotics are used to control the spread of infective endocarditis.

Repair versus replacement for active endocarditis of the mitral valve: 9 years of experience

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To determine the factors contributing to successful mitral valve repair (MVP) and to discuss the effect of complex techniques on the durability of MVP for active infective endocarditis (IE) affecting the mitral valve.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 39.6% underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR) and 60.4% underwent MVP. We used logistic regression to identify influencing factors of the choice of surgical technique. The results were compared between groups and subgroups after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Risk factors for MVR included poor valve quality (odds ratio [OR] 23.3, p = .001), a large defect after debridement (OR 16.4, p < .001), and heavy valve infection (OR 3.7, p = .027). After PSM, we did not find a significant difference in the frequency of major postoperative complications or the in-hospital or postdischarge death rate. The reintervention rate for MVP was significantly higher than that for MVR (p = .047). Subgroup analysis found a significant relationship between the use of a complex repair technique and the need for reoperation (p = .020).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of valve repair or replacement for patients with active IE affecting the mitral valve was influenced by the intraoperative characteristics of the infected valve rather than the severity of systemic infection or overall health status. The choice of surgical treatment strategy had no effect on major postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, or medium-term survival. However, the medium-term durability of MVP was poorer than that of MVR. The use of the patch technique for free margins or extensive leaflet defects was associated with a need for reintervention.

Valve replacement or repair in native mitral valve infective endocarditis-Which is better? A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Native mitral valve infective endocarditis (IE) plagues patients and surgeons alike because of its high mortality and recurrence rates as well as poor prognosis. Mitral valve repair (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) are two main surgical methods. However, the question of which benefits patients more remains controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically review the two approaches, focusing on the early survival rate and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted using studies sourced from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane literature databases to compare MVP and MVR, with data extracted for baseline characteristics, mortality, survival, recurrent endocarditis, and valve reoperation. Risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) values were calculated, and publication bias was tested.

RESULTS

A total of 17 relevant publications with a total population of 3759 patients, with 1180 patients having undergone MVP and 2579 patients having undergone MVR, respectively, were analyzed. Patients who underwent MVP may benefit from a lower risk of early mortality (RR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.66; p < .00001), a higher long-term survival rate (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; p < .001; I2  = 0%), and a lower risk of recurrence (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40-1.09; p = .10; I2  = 0%). However, a similar risk of reoperation was observed for both groups (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.36-2.91; p = .96; I2  = 43%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that MVP may lead to better outcomes compared to MVR. Among patients with mitral valve IE, MVP can reduce in-hospital mortality, improve long-term survival, and has a lower risk of recurrent endocarditis. As a result, MVP may be suitable as a primary treatment choice and should be considered whenever possible in most IE patients.

Role of Mitral Valve Repair for Mitral Infective Endocarditis

The 2 primary objectives of surgery in mitral valve infective endocarditis (IE) are total removal of the infected tissue and reconstruction of cardiac morphology, including repair or replacement of the affected valve. Single-institution series have suggested the feasibility and effectiveness of mitral valve repair (MVrep) over replacement in mitral IE in terms of in-hospital mortality and long-term event-free survival. This article reviews the history, details of the relevant repair techniques, and clinical results of MVrep for mitral IE.

Feasibility and outcome of mitral valve repair in patients with infective endocarditis

Background

Valve repair is the treatment of choice for native mitral valve regurgitation. The feasibility of repair when the defect is caused by acute infective endocarditis (IE) is debated. This study aims to compare the outcome of repair and replacement procedures, to report the rate of repair in a single surgical center, and to review the literature on this topic.

Results

We retrospectively analyzed 108 patients with native mitral IE, potentially eligible for surgical repair. Of these 108, 90 (83%) underwent surgery, and 18 were treated conservatively. Among the 90 surgical patients, 57 (63%) underwent valve replacement and 33 valve repair (37%). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. The two primary endpoints were mortality and freedom from recurrent endocarditis. Secondary endpoints were the post-operative incidence of major adverse events (hospitalization for any cause, pacemaker implantation, new onset of atrial fibrillation, sternal dehiscence), left ventricular systolic function (LVSF), and valvular function at 1-year echocardiographic follow-up. All-cause mortality was lower for valve repair, although not significantly (p = 0.86), as well as nonfatal adverse events (p = 0.92) and relapse rate (p = 0.20) at 3 years. We did not find differences between the two groups at echocardiographic follow-up, neither for left ventricular systolic function (p = 0.22), nor for valvular continence (p = 0.28).

Conclusions

In our experience, the mid-term outcome of repair in IE is comparable to valve replacement and should be considered whenever possible, as in degenerative valve disease. The review of the literature supports this strategy.

A surgical case of triple valve replacement for triple valve endocarditis with multiple vegetations

A 68-year-old man with cerebral infarction and right hemiplegia was diagnosed with active infective endocarditis, and multiple large vegetations and more than moderate valve regurgitation by three different valves were detected using transthoracic echocardiography. An urgent surgical intervention was selected, and aortic and mitral valve replacements using bioprostheses were initially performed due to large vegetation on both these valves with valve cusp destruction. Residual severe regurgitation persisted despite tricuspid valve plasty; therefore, tricuspid valve replacement using a tissue valve was performed, and triple valve replacement was eventually accomplished without any serious hemodynamic compromise. The postoperative clinical course was fair and the patient was discharged after 3 months of inpatient strict management and cardiac rehabilitation. However, he died approximately 9 months after the initial surgery due to multiple organ failure. We herein presented a rare surgical case of triple valve replacement for triple valve endocarditis with multiple large vegetations.