Stentless aortic bioprostheses: their role in the treatment of aortic endocarditis should not be underestimated

Complicated infective aortic endocarditis: comparison of different surgical strategies

OBJECTIVES

The choice of substitute during aortic valve replacement for infective endocarditis (IE) is still widely debated. We retrospectively reviewed all patients operated for aortic IE and compared groups according to the complexity of IE and substitutes implanted.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2015, 187 patients were treated using stentless bioprostheses (SBP) as root replacement (n = 30), mechanical prostheses (MP, n = 45) or stented bioprostheses (SP, n = 112) (mean follow-up 4.6 years, survival data 100% complete).

RESULTS

MP patients were younger (42.5 ± 10.7 vs 57.2 ± 16.9 years [SBP], 59.1 ± 14.1 years [SP], P < 0.01), but rates of intravenous drug use and chronic dialysis were not different. SBP patients more often had root involvement (83.3% vs 33.3% [MP], 25.9% [SP], P < 0.01) and prosthetic valve endocarditis (53.3% vs 6.7% [MP], 12.5% [SP], P < 0.01). In-hospital complications and length of stay were not different. Thirty-day mortality was 13.3% [SBP], 6.7% [MP] and 12.5% [SP] (P = 0.53). Five-year survival tended to be superior in SBP (83.3% vs 77.6% [MP], 67.1% [SP], P = 0.09). In patients with complicated IE (root involvement or prosthetic valve endocarditis, n = 77), SBP had superior long-term survival (86.9% vs 81.3% [MP], 57.2% [SP], PSBP/MP  = 0.07, PSBP/SP = 0.05). No early reinfection (<90 days) occurred in SBP vs 4.4% [MP] and 7.1% [SP] (P = 0.29). Reoperation for late reinfection occurred in 6.7% [SBP] vs 11.1% [MP] and 12.5% [SP] (P = 0.65). Prosthesis failure occurred in 3.3% [SBP] and 1.8% [SP] (P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of SBP provides favourable outcomes in patients with IE with low rates of reinfection and valve deterioration. It seems to be an optimal device in patients with complex IE.