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

The Role of Microbes in Surgical Decision Making for Infective Endocarditis: Mitral Valve Repair or Replacement?

BACKGROUND

The benefits of mitral repair versus replacement for endocarditis are inconclusive. This study compares outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis undergoing mitral valve repair versus replacement and investigates the impact of microbial etiology.

METHODS

All 251 patients undergoing mitral valve surgery for active endocarditis between 2010 and 2023 were enrolled, 180 (71.7%) replacement and 71 (28.3%) repair. To adjust for imbalances, inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied and 187 patients were obtained.

RESULTS

The analysis between groups, following the application of inverse probability of treatment weighting, showed no statistically significant differences across all considered outcomes. Early and late death was observed respectively in 6 (8.5%) and 11 (15.5%) patients in the repair group versus 24 (13.3%) and 45 (25.0%) in the replacement group without statistical significance (p = 0.221 and p = 0.446). Relapse occurred in six patients (8.5%) in the repair group after a median time of 4.0 months and in six (3.3%) in the replacement after 6.9 months (p = 0.071).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical strategy in mitral endocarditis has no effect on major postoperative complications, mortality, or medium/long-term survival. Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase-negative Staphylococci represent a risk for early mortality and relapse. However, mitral valve repair for endocarditis can be pursued when it ensures the complete eradication of all infected tissue, particularly in cases caused by Streptococcus infection, in young patients, and after a minimum of 18 days of antibiotic therapy.

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.

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 Repair vs. Replacement by Different Etiologies - A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

When mitral valve (MV) surgery is indicated, repair is preferred over replacement; however, this preference is not supported by evidence from clinical trials. Furthermore, the benefits of MV repair may not be universal for all etiologies of MV disease.Methods and Results: This study identified a total of 18,428 patients who underwent MV repair (n=4,817) or MV replacement (n=13,611) during 2001-2018 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. These patients were classified into 4 etiologies: infective endocarditis (IE, n=2,678), rheumatic heart disease (RHD, n=4,524), ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR, n=3,893), and degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR, n=7,333). After propensity matching, all-cause mortality during follow-up was lower among patients receiving MV repair than among patients receiving MV replacement in the IE, IMR, and DMR groups (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.93; HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.92; and HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64-0.84, respectively). However, in the RHD group, the MV reoperation rate was higher after MV repair than after MV replacement (subdistribution HR=1.91, 95% CI: 1.02-3.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with MV replacement, MV repair was associated with a lower late mortality in patients with IE, IMR, and DMR, and a higher risk of reoperation in patients with RHD.

Proof of Concept: Development of a Mitral Annuloplasty Ring With Crosshatch Net

OBJECTIVE

Here we report our preclinical, proof-of-concept testing to assess the ability of a novel device to correct mitral regurgitation. The Milwaukee Heart device aims to enable any cardiac surgeon to perform high-quality mitral valve repair using a standard annuloplasty ring with a crosshatch of microporous, monofilament suture.

METHODS

Hemodynamic, echocardiographic, and videographic data were collected at baseline, following induction of mitral regurgitation, and after repair using porcine hearts in an ex vivo biosimulator model. A commercially available cardiac prosthesis assessment platform was then used to assess the hydrodynamic characteristics of the study device.

RESULTS

Porcine biosimulator pressure and flow metrics exhibited successful correction of mitral regurgitation following device implantation with similar values to baseline. Hydrodynamic results yielded pressure gradients and an effective orifice area comparable to currently approved prostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

The study device effectively reduced mitral valve regurgitation and improved hemodynamics in our preclinical model with similar biophysical metrics to currently approved devices. Future in vivo trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy, biocompatibility, and freedom from the most likely adverse events, such as device thrombosis, embolic events, and hemolysis.

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.

A Nationwide Study on Mitral Valve Repair vs Replacement for Active Endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Real-world evidence supporting the reproducibility and superiority of valve repair over replacement in active mitral valve infective endocarditis is lacking.

METHODS

Data from a prospective nationwide database, including all cardiac surgical procedures in The Netherlands, were used. Adult patients undergoing primary mitral valve intervention who had a diagnosis of active infective endocarditis and who underwent surgery between 2013 and 2020 were included. Survival analysis was performed for the whole follow-up period as well as after applying the landmark of 90 days.

RESULTS

Of 715 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 294 (41.1%) underwent valve repair. Mitral valve repair rates decreased slightly over the course of the study. The early mortality rate was 13.0%, and a trend of steadily declining early mortality rates over the course of the study, despite a steady increase in patient complexity, was observed. On risk-adjusted analysis, mitral valve replacement demonstrated inferior results when compared with valve repair (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.216; 95% CI, 1.425-3.448; P < .001), even after a landmark analysis was performed (adjusted hazard ratio 2.489; 95% CI, 1.124-5.516; P = .025). These results were confirmed by a propensity score-adjusted analysis (adjusted hazard ratio 2.251; 95% CI, 1.029-4.21; P = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary trends in mitral valve surgery for active infective endocarditis suggest growing patient complexity but slightly declining early mortality rates. A trend of decreasing mitral valve repair rates was seen. The results of this study suggest improved late outcomes of valve repair compared with valve replacement.

Surgical Challenges in Infective Endocarditis: State of the Art

Infective endocarditis (IE) is still a life-threatening disease with frequent lethal outcomes despite the profound changes in its clinical, microbiological, imaging, and therapeutic profiles. Nowadays, the scenario for IE has changed since rheumatic fever has declined, but on the other hand, multiple aspects, such as elderly populations, cardiovascular device implantation procedures, and better use of multiple imaging modalities and multidisciplinary care, have increased, leading to escalations in diagnosis. Since the ESC and AHA Guidelines have been released, specific aspects of diagnostic and therapeutic management have been clarified to provide better and faster diagnosis and prognosis. Surgical treatment is required in approximately half of patients with IE in order to avoid progressive heart failure, irreversible structural damage in the case of uncontrolled infection, and the prevention of embolism. The timing of surgery has been one of the main aspects discussed, identifying cases in which surgery needs to be performed on an emergency (within 24 h) or urgent (within 7 days) basis, irrespective of the duration of antibiotic treatment, or cases where surgery can be postponed to allow a brief period of antibiotic treatment under careful clinical and echocardiographic observation. Mainly, guidelines put emphasis on the importance of an endocarditis team in the handling of systemic complications and how they affect the timing of surgery and perioperative management. Neurological complications, acute renal failure, splenic or musculoskeletal manifestations, or infections determined by multiresistant microorganisms or fungi can affect long-term prognosis and survival. Not to be outdone, anatomical and surgical factors, such as the presence of native or prosthetic valve endocarditis, a repair strategy when feasible, anatomical extension and disruption in the case of an annular abscess (mitral valve annulus, aortic mitral curtain, aortic root, and annulus), and the choice of prosthesis and conduits, can be equally crucial. It can be hard for surgeons to maneuver between correct pre-operative planning and facing unexpected obstacles during intraoperative management. The aim of this review is to provide an overview and analysis of a broad spectrum of specific surgical scenarios and how their challenging management can be essential to ensure better outcomes and prognoses.

Minimally Invasive Surgery: Standard of Care for Mitral Valve Endocarditis

Background. Minimally invasive surgery via right mini-thoracotomy has become the standard of care for the treatment of mitral valve disease worldwide, particularly at high-volume centers. In recent years, the spectrum of indications has progressively shifted and extended to fragile and higher-risk patients, also addressing more complex mitral valve disease and ultimately including patients with native or prosthetic infective endocarditis. The rationale for the adoption of the minimally invasive approach is to minimize surgical trauma, promote an earlier postoperative recovery, and reduce the incidence of surgical wound infection and other nosocomial infections. The aim of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate the effectiveness and the early and late outcome in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for mitral valve infective endocarditis. Methods. Prospectively collected data regarding minimally invasive surgery in patients with mitral valve infective endocarditis were entered into a dedicated database for the period between January 2007 and December 2022 and retrospectively analyzed. All comers during the study period underwent a preoperative evaluation based on their clinical history and anatomy for the allocation to the most appropriate surgical strategy. The selection of the mini-thoracotomy approach was primarily driven by a thorough transthoracic and especially transesophageal echocardiographic evaluation, coupled with total body and vascular imaging. Results. During the study period, 92 patients underwent right mini-thoracotomy to treat native (80/92, 87%) or prosthetic (12/92, 13%) mitral valve endocarditis at our institution, representing 5% of the patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral surgery. Twenty-six (28%) patients had undergone previous cardiac operations, whereas 18 (20%) presented preoperatively with complications related to endocarditis, most commonly systemic embolization. Sixty-nine and twenty-three patients, respectively, underwent early surgery (75%) or were operated on after the completion of the targeted antibiotic treatment (25%). A conservative procedure was feasible in 16/80 (20%) patients with native valve endocarditis. Conversion to standard sternotomy was necessary in a single case (1.1%). No cases of intraoperative iatrogenic aortic dissection were reported. Four patients died perioperatively, accounting for a thirty-day mortality of 4.4%. The causes of death were refractory heart or multiorgan failure and/or septic shock. A new onset stroke was observed postoperatively in one case (1.1%). Overall actuarial survival rate at 1 and 5 years after operation was 90.8% and 80.4%, whereas freedom from mitral valve reoperation at 1 and 5 years was 96.3% and 93.2%, respectively. Conclusions. This present study shows good early and long-term results in higher-risk patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for mitral valve infective endocarditis. Total body, vascular, and echocardiographic screening represent the key points to select the optimal approach and allow for the extension of indications for minimally invasive surgery to sicker patients, including active endocarditis and sepsis.

Twenty-Year Experience with Surgery for Native and Prosthetic Mitral Valve Endocarditis

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the early and long-term results of surgical treatment of isolated mitral native and prosthetic valve infective endocarditis. Materials and Methods: All patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement for infective endocarditis at our institution between January 2001 and December 2021 were included in the study. The preoperative and postoperative characteristics and mortality of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 130 patients, 85 males and 45 females, with a median age of 61 ± 14 years, underwent surgery for isolated mitral valve endocarditis during the study period. There were 111 (85%) native and 19 (15%) prosthetic valve endocarditis cases. Fifty-one (39%) patients died during the follow-up, and the overall mean patient survival time was 11.8 ± 0.9 years. The mean survival time was better in patients with mitral native valve endocarditis compared to patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (12.3 ± 0.9 years vs. 8 ± 1.4 years; p = 0.1), but the difference was not statistically significant. Patients who underwent mitral valve repair had a better survival rate compared to patients who had mitral valve replacement (14.8 ± 1.6 vs. 11.3 ± 1 years; p = 0.06); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients who underwent mitral valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis had a significantly better survival rate compared to patients who received a biological prosthesis (15.6 ± 1.6 vs. 8.2 ± 0.8 years; p < 0.001). Patients aged ≤60 years had significantly better survival compared to patients aged >60 years (17.1 ± 1.1 vs. 8.2 ± 0.9; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the patient's age >60 years at the time of surgery was an independent risk factor for mortality, while mitral valve repair was a protective factor. Eight (7%) patients required reintervention. Freedom from reintervention was significantly higher in patients with mitral native valve endocarditis compared to patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (19.3 ± 0.5 vs. 11.5 ± 1.7 years; p = 0.04). Conclusions: Surgery for mitral valve endocarditis is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The patient's age at the time of surgery represents an independent risk factor for mortality. Mitral valve repair should be the preferred choice whenever possible in suitable patients affected by infective endocarditis.

Endocarditis due to Candida albicans in an immunocompromised patient: A case report

BACKGROUND

Fungal endocarditis is a low-frequency disease with a challenging diagnosis, as it can be mistaken with bacterial endocarditis. Fungal endocarditis causes higher mortality rates in immunocompromised patients. In the clinical practice, the endocarditis caused by fungi represents up to 10% of all infectious endocarditis cases and has a mortality rate of nearly 50%.

CASE REPORT

Here we present the case of a 53-year-old woman under corticosteroid therapy with a history of rheumatic heart disease, aortic valve replacement, and rheumatoid arthritis, who presented with fungal endocarditis caused by Candida albicans. Even though the patient received 3 years of antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole, had valve replacement surgery, and received intensive care, the patient finally worsened and died.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidities and corticosteroid therapy predisposed the patient to acquire fungal endocarditis. This case highlights the importance of implementing procedures for the isolation and identification of fungi, and for carrying out antifungal-susceptibility testing, as well as establishing surveillance programs to identify infection-causing species and drug resistance patterns in hospitals. Moreover, designing and upgrading the algorithm for infectious endocarditis is the key to future improvements in diagnosis.

Valve endocarditis, to repair or not to repair, is that really the question?

The meta-analysis by He et al. has the worth to cover, as much as possible, a gap of scientific evidence were conducting a randomized trial appears very complex for ethical and logistical reasons. The authors concluded that mitral valve repair (MVP) provides better-pooled results, both early and late, with respect to mitral valve replacement. However, the superiority of MVP is driven by some single large cohort studies where surgeons had wide experience in the field of MVP for infective endocarditis. This finding is also confirmed by other studies. But if mitral repair produces such a better short- and long-term survival than replacement, why are there no clear indications from consensus and guidelines pushing surgeons toward the pursuit of a reconstructive procedure at almost any cost? We wonder to repair or not to repair, is that really the question? The AATS consensus suggests repairing "whenever possible" but without providing more specific indications. If the two primary goals of surgery are total removal of infected tissues and reconstruction of cardiac morphology, including repair or replacement of the affected valve(s), probably MVP should be performed in case of less extensive tissue detriment by the infection. In more wide valve involvement, MVP may be the choice but only in very expert hands and in Centers with a very large volumes of valve repairing. This decision cannot, therefore, be the result of the choice of an individual but must derive from a careful multidisciplinary discussion to be held in an EndoTeam.