Using surgical risk scores in nonsurgically treated infective endocarditis patients

Mitral valve repair and replacement in infectious endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis (IE) poses significant clinical challenges, often necessitating surgical intervention for improved patient outcomes. The choice between mitral valve repair (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) is crucial in managing IE. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the effectiveness of MVP and MVR in treating IE, focusing on outcomes such as postoperative bleeding, mortality, recurrent endocarditis, and stroke.

MAIN TEXT

A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies directly comparing MVP and MVR in IE patients were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed, and meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software. Thirty-two studies involving 82,123 patients were included. MVP was associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.84) and reduced long-term mortality (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.32-0.51) compared to MVR. However, MVR showed lower rates of recurrent endocarditis. MVP was also associated with a decreased likelihood of postoperative stroke (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.68).2, 4 CONCLUSIONS: MVP demonstrates advantages over MVR in reducing postoperative bleeding, long-term mortality, and stroke risk in IE patients. However, individual patient factors and surgical expertise must be considered in treatment decisions. Further research, including randomized controlled trials, is needed to validate these findings and refine treatment algorithms for IE management.

Perioperative risk stratification scores in infective endocarditis and its usefulness

Infective endocarditis continues to represent a serious disease worldwide with high morbidity and mortality rates despite advances in diagnosis and treatment. Risk assessment plays a pivotal role in determining the appropriate course of treatment for patients diagnosed with infective endocarditis. In this context, specific endocarditis risk scores have been developed trying to help in the risk assessment process. During the last 15 years, 19 specific endocarditis scores have been published. These newly created scores are very heterogenous in their characteristics, factors included, and validation strategies. The purpose of this review is to analyze the published specific infective endocarditis risk scores and discuss their advantages, limitations, and usefulness.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01644-y.

Performance of the SHARPEN Score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index for In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Prediction in Infective Endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Central Illustration : Performance of the SHARPEN Score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index for In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Prediction in Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND

SHARPEN was the first dedicated score for in-hospital mortality prediction in infective endocarditis (IE) regardless of cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the ability of the SHARPEN score to predict in-hospital and post-discharge mortality and compare it with that of the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study including definite IE (Duke modified criteria) admissions from 2000 to 2016. The area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) was calculated to assess predictive ability. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression was performed. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

We studied 179 hospital admissions. In-hospital mortality was 22.3%; 68 (38.0%) had cardiac surgery. Median (interquartile range, IQR) SHARPEN and CCI scores were 9(7-11) and 3(2-6), respectively. SHARPEN had better in-hospital mortality prediction than CCI in non-operated patients (AUC-ROC 0.77 vs. 0.62, p = 0.003); there was no difference in overall (p = 0.26) and in operated patients (p = 0.41). SHARPEN > 10 at admission was associated with decreased in-hospital survival in the overall (HR 3.87; p < 0.001), in non-operated (HR 3.46; p = 0.006) and operated (HR 6.86; p < 0.001) patients. CCI > 3 at admission was associated with worse in-hospital survival in the overall (HR 3.0; p = 0.002), and in operated patients (HR 5.57; p = 0.005), but not in non-operated patients (HR 2.13; p = 0.119). Post-discharge survival was worse in patients with SHARPEN > 10 (HR 3.11; p < 0.001) and CCI > 3 (HR 2.63; p < 0.001) at admission; however, there was no difference in predictive ability between these groups.

CONCLUSION

SHARPEN was superior to CCI in predicting in-hospital mortality in non-operated patients. There was no difference between the scores regarding post-discharge mortality.

Infective endocarditis: Do we have an effective risk score model? A systematic review

Background

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare, highly morbid condition with 17% in-hospital mortality. A total of 25-30% require surgery and there is ongoing debate with regard to markers predicting patient outcomes and guiding intervention. This systematic review aims to evaluate all IE risk scores currently available.

Methods

Standard methodology (PRISMA guideline) was used. Papers with risk score analysis for IE patients were included, with attention to studies reporting area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC/ROC). Qualitative analysis was carried out, including assessment of validation processes and comparison of these results to original derivation cohorts where available. Risk-of-bias analysis illustrated according to PROBAST guidelines.

Results

Of 75 articles initially identified, 32 papers were analyzed for a total of 20 proposed scores (range 66-13,000 patients), 14 of which were specific for IE. The number of variables per score ranged from 3 to 14 with only 50% including microbiological variables and 15% including biomarkers. The following scores had good performance (AUC > 0.8) in studies proposing the score (often the derivation cohort); however fared poorly when applied to a new cohort: PALSUSE, DeFeo, ANCLA, RISK-E, EndoSCORE, MELD-XI, COSTA, and SHARPEN. DeFeo score demonstrated the largest discrepancy with initial AUC of 0.88, compared to 0.58 when applied to different cohorts. The inflammatory response in IE has been well documented and CRP has been found to be an independent predictor for worse outcomes. There is ongoing investigation on alternate inflammatory biomarkers which may assist in IE management. Of the scores identified in this review, only three have included a biomarker as a predictor.

Conclusion

Despite the variety of available scores, their development has been limited by small sample size, retrospective collection of data and short-term outcomes, with lack of external validation, limiting their transportability. Future population studies and large comprehensive registries are required to address this unmet clinical need.

Contemporary risk models for infective endocarditis surgery: a narrative review

Infective endocarditis is a complex heterogeneous condition involving the infection of the endocardium and heart valves, leading to severe complications, including death. Surgery is often indicated in patients with infective endocarditis but is associated with elevated risk compared with other forms of cardiac surgery. Risk models play an important role in many cardiac surgeries as they can help inform clinicians and patients regarding procedural risk, decision-making to proceed or not, and influence perioperative management; however, they remain under-utilized in the infective endocarditis settings. Another crucial role of such risk models is to assess predicted versus found mortality, thereby allowing an assessment of institutional performance in infective endocarditis surgery. Traditionally, general cardiac surgery risk models such as European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), EuroSCORE II, and Society of Thoracic Surgeon's score have been applied to endocarditis surgery. However, there has been the development of many endocarditis surgery-specific scores over the last decade. This review aims to discuss clinical characteristics and applications of all contemporary risk scores in the setting of surgical treatment of infective endocarditis.

Risk scores' performance and their impact on operative decision-making in left-sided endocarditis: a cohort study

The accuracy of contemporary risk scores in predicting perioperative mortality in infective endocarditis (IE) remains controversial. The aim is to evaluate the performance of existent mortality risk scores for cardiovascular surgery in IE and the impact on operability at high-risk thresholds. A single-center retrospective review of adult patients diagnosed with acute left-sided IE undergoing surgery from May 2014 to August 2019 (n = 142) was done. Individualized risk calculation was obtained according to the available mortality risk scores: EuroScore I and II, PALSUSE, Risk-E, Costa, De Feo-Cotrufo, AEPEI, STS-risk, STS-IE, APORTEI, and ICE-PCS scores. A cross-validation analysis was performed on the score with the best area under the curve (AUC). The 30-day survival was 96.5% (95%CI 91-98%). The score with worse area under the curve (AUC = 0.6) was the STS-IE score, while the higher was for the RISK-E score (AUC = 0.89). The AUC of the majority of risk scores suggested acceptable performance; however, statistically significant differences in expected versus observed mortalities were common. The cross-validation analysis showed that a large number of survivors (> 75%) would not have been operated if arbitrary high-risk threshold estimates had been used to deny surgery. The observed mortality in our cohort is significantly lower than is predicted by contemporary risk scores. Despite the reasonable numeric performance of the analyzed scores, their utility in judging the operability of a given patient remains questionable, as demonstrated in the cross-validation analysis. Future guidelines may advise that denial of surgery should only follow a highly experienced Endocarditis Team evaluation.

Endocarditis in the intensive care unit: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) is increasing worldwide, resulting in a higher number of patients with IE being admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Nearly half of patients with IE develop a complication during their clinical course. However, few well conducted studies or reviews are devoted to critically ill IE patients. This review discusses the contemporary perioperative and intensive care literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

IE epidemiology is changing towards elderly and frail patients. ICU patients are at risk of risk of developing IE because they are often in a pro-inflammatory state and many also have several indwelling catheters, which favors infection. Increased performance and recent advances in cardiac imaging allow for easier diagnosis of EI, but the applicability of these techniques to ICU patients is still relatively limited. New developments in antibiotic treatment and adjunctive therapies are explored further in this review.

SUMMARY

The lack of evidence on ICU patients with IE highlights the critical importance of multidisciplinary decision-making and the need for further research.

Prognostic assessment of valvular surgery in active infective endocarditis: multicentric nationwide validation of a new score developed from a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Several risk prediction models have been developed to estimate the risk of mortality after valve surgery for active infective endocarditis (IE), but few external validations have been conducted to assess their accuracy. We previously developed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of IE-specific factors for the in-hospital mortality rate after IE valve surgery, whose obtained pooled estimations were the basis for the development of a new score (APORTEI). The aim of the present study was to assess its prognostic accuracy in a nationwide cohort.

METHODS

We analysed the prognostic utility of the APORTEI score using patient-level data from a multicentric national cohort. Patients who underwent surgery for active IE between 2008 and 2018 were included. Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and the calibration was assessed using the calibration slope and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Agreement between the APORTEI and the EuroSCORE I was also analysed by Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), the Bland-Altman agreement analysis and a scatterplot graph.

RESULTS

The 11 variables that comprised the APORTEI score were analysed in the sample. The APORTEI score was calculated in 1338 patients. The overall observed surgical mortality rate was 25.56%. The score demonstrated adequate discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.77) and calibration (calibration slope = 1.03; Hosmer-Lemeshow test P = 0.389). We found a lack of agreement between the APORTEI and EuroSCORE I (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

The APORTEI score, developed from a systematic review and meta-analysis, showed an adequate estimation of the risk of mortality after IE valve surgery in a nationwide cohort.

Prognostic factors of mortality after surgery in infective endocarditis: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

There is a lack of consensus about which endocarditis-specific preoperative characteristics have an actual impact over postoperative mortality. Our objective was the identification and quantification of these factors.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all the studies which reported factors related to in-hospital mortality after surgery for acute infective endocarditis, conducted according to PRISMA recommendations. A search string was constructed and applied on three different databases. Two investigators independently reviewed the retrieved references. Quality assessment was performed for identification of potential biases. All the variables that were included in at least two validated risk scores were meta-analyzed independently, and the pooled estimates were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with their confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The final sample consisted on 16 studies, comprising a total of 7484 patients. The overall pooled OR were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for: age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.05), female sex (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.35-1.81), urgent or emergency surgery (OR 2.39 95% CI 1.91-3.00), previous cardiac surgery (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.84-2.61), NYHA ≥ III (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.33-2.55), cardiogenic shock (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.06-5.64), prosthetic valve (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.68-2.33), multivalvular affection (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01-1.82), renal failure (OR 2.57, 95% CI 2.15-3.06), paravalvular abscess (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.77-3.22) and S. aureus infection (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.89-2.73).

CONCLUSIONS

After a systematic review, we identified 11 preoperative factors related to an increased postoperative mortality. The meta-analysis of each of these factors showed a significant association with an increased in-hospital mortality after surgery for active infective endocarditis. Graph summary of the Pooled Odds Ratios of the 11 preoperative factors analyzed after the systematic review and meta-analysis.

Risk scores and surgery for infective endocarditis: in search of a good predictive score

Objectives: To evaluate scoring systems that have been created to predict the risk of death post-surgery in infective endocarditis (IE). Design: Eight scores - (1) The Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) risk score for IE, (2) De Feo score, (3) PALSUSE score (prosthetic valve, age ≥70, large intracardiac destruction, Staphylococcus spp, urgent surgery, sex [female], EuroSCORE ≥10), (4) ANCLA score (anemia, New York Heart Association class IV, critical state, large intracardiac destruction, surgery of thoracic aorta), (5) Risk-Endocarditis Score (RISK-E), (6) score for heart valve or prosthesis IE (EndoSCORE), and (7,8) Association pour l'Étude et la Prévention de l'Endocadite Infectieuse (AEPEI) score I and II - were evaluated in 324 (mean age, 61.8 ± 14.6 years) consecutive patients having IE and undergoing cardiac operation (1999-2018, Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy). Results: There were 45 (13.9%) in-hospital deaths. Despite many differences on the number and the type of variables, all the investigated scores showed good goodness-of-fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p ≥.28). For five scores, accuracy of prediction (receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis) was good (ANCLA score) or fair (STS risk score for IE, PALSUSE score, AEPEI score I and II). When compared one-to-one (Hanley-McNeil method), accuracy of prediction of ANCLA score was higher than all of other risk scores except for AEPEI score I (p = .077). Conclusions: Five of eight scores that were evaluated in this study showed satisfactory performance in predicting in-hospital mortality following surgery for IE. The ANCLA score should be preferred.