What type of valve replacement should be used in patients with endocarditis?

Can prosthesis type influence the recurrence of infective endocarditis after surgery for native valve endocarditis? A propensity weighted comparison

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to investigate whether the incidence of valve-related adverse events might be different depending on the valve substitute after valve replacement for left-sided native valve endocarditis.

METHODS

We assessed the long-term freedom from recurrence, reoperation and survival of 395 patients who had valve replacements for native valve endocarditis (314 mechanical vs 81 biological). Age <18 years, reoperation, prosthetic endocarditis, right valve involvement, valve repair and homograft implants were the main exclusion criteria. The balance between the 2 groups was addressed by weighting the results on the inverse of the propensity score.

RESULTS

After inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), freedom from recurrence of infective endocarditis was not significantly different (mechanical 84.1 ± 3.2% vs 50.6 ± 21.7%; P = 0.29) nor was freedom from reoperation different (mechanical 85.7 ± 3.1% vs biological 50.9 ± 21.9%; P = 0.29). Excluding competing deaths, patients receiving a bioprosthesis had a similar subdistribution hazard of the above end points compared to recipients of a mechanical valve [recurrence IPTW: hazard ratio (HR) 1.631, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.756-3.516; P = 0.21; reoperation IPTW-HR 1.737, 95% CI 0.780-3.870; P = 0.18]. Mechanical valves were associated with improved long-term survival (34.9 ± 5.8% vs 10.5 ± 7.4% at 30 years; P = 0.0009; in particular: aortic valve subgroup 41.6 ± 9.3% vs 10.1 ± 8.2%; P < 0.0001), although the hazard of cardiovascular mortality did not favour either valve type (IPTW: HR 1.361, 95% CI 0.771-2.404; P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed a clinical trend in favour of mechanical valves as valve substitutes for native valve endocarditis, especially in the aortic position. In view of long-term freedom from adverse events, the choice of the valve type should be tailored according to patient characteristics and specific clinical conditions.

Bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement for infective endocarditis in patients aged 50 to 69 years

Background

The optimal choice of the valve prosthesis in mitral valve replacement (MVR) for infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial and challenging, particularly for younger patients.

Hypothesis

The postoperative outcomes of mechanical and biological MVR in IE patients aged 50 to 69 years are different.

Methods

All IE patients aged 50 to 69 years with primary MVR in Hubei province hospitals from 2002 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The median duration of follow‐up was 8.7 years (IQR, 6.8‐10.9 years). Propensity score matching (1:3 ratio) was used to yield 492 patients with comparable baseline features between bioprostheses and mechanical prosthetic valve groups. Outcomes were postoperative mid‐ to long‐ term survival, mitral valve reoperation, prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), stroke, and major bleeding events.

Results

Fifteen‐year survival after MVR was 80.6% in the mechanical valve group and 69.3% in the bioprostheses group (HR 0.545, P = .040). The cumulative incidence of mitral valve reoperation was 8.8% with mechanical valves and 21.4% with bioprostheses (HR 0.260, P = .002). The cumulative incidence of PVE was 5.6% with mechanical valves and 7.2% with bioprostheses (HR 0.629, P = .435). The cumulative incidence of stroke was 12.9% with mechanical valves and 10.5% with bioprostheses (HR 1.217, P = .647). The cumulative incidence of major bleeding was 12.0% with mechanical valves and 6.75% with bioprostheses (HR 1.579, P = .268).

Conclusions

Mechanical valve prostheses were associated with better survival, lower rates of reoperation compared with bioprostheses within 15 years after MVR in IE patients aged 50 to 69. These findings suggest mechanical valve prostheses may be a more reasonable alternative to bioprostheses in this patient group.

The prognosis of infective endocarditis treated with biological valves versus mechanical valves: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Surgery remains the primary form of treatment for infective endocarditis (IE). However, it is not clear what type of prosthetic valve provides a better prognosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the prognosis of infective endocarditis treated with biological valves to cases treated with mechanical valves.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1960 to November 2016.Randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohorts and prospective studies comparing outcomes between biological valve and mechanical valve management for infective endocarditis were analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the literature and extracted data, and Stata 12.0 software was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 11 publications were included; 10,754 cases were selected, involving 6776 cases of biological valves and 3,978 cases of mechanical valves. The all-cause mortality risk of the biological valve group was higher than that of the mechanical valve group (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44, P = 0.023), as was early mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, P = 0.033). The recurrence of endocarditis (HR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.42, P = 0.001), as well as the risk of reoperation (HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.80, P = 0.010) were more likely to occur in the biological valve group. The incidence of postoperative embolism was less in the biological valve group than in the mechanical valve group, but this difference was not statistically significant (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07, P = 0.245). For patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), there was no significant difference in survival rates between the biological valve group and the mechanical valve group (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, P = 0.520).

CONCLUSION

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that mechanical valves can provide a significantly better prognosis in patients with infective endocarditis. There were significant differences in the clinical features of patients receiving a biological valve compared to patients receiving a mechanical valve. A large, multicenter retrospective study included in our meta-analysis suggested that any mortality risk of the biological valve group was significant higher than that of the mechanical valve group. However, the risk was no different after risk was adjusted. So, we thought the reason for this result may be related to the characteristics of the patient rather than valve dysfunction. It is still necessary to future randomized studies to verify this conclusion.

Durability of homografts used to treat complex aortic valve endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Acute bacterial endocarditis may be extremely destructive for cardiac valves and their periannular structures. It has been suggested that complex reconstruction procedures require the use of homografts because of their versatility and potency to resist repeated infection.

METHODS

We studied the long-term results of 69 patients with complex endocarditis who received homografts in the aortic position.

RESULTS

The results after a mean follow-up of 8.1 ± 5.1 years (median, 8.0 years) showed that the recurrence of endocarditis even in these complex cases is low (7%), but the incidence of structural valve degeneration (SVD) is high. Freedom from SVD at 10 years is only 60.0%. When aortic homografts degenerate, they predominantly calcify.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of homografts to reconstruct endocarditis-related aortic valve destruction is associated with a low recurrence of endocarditis but a high incidence of SVD in the long run.

One-year outcome following biological or mechanical valve replacement for infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of patients require cardiac surgery during the acute phase of infective endocarditis (IE). We describe the characteristics of patients according to the type of valve replacement (mechanical or biological), and examine whether the type of prosthesis was associated with in-hospital and 1-year mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 5591 patients included in the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Prospective Cohort Study, 1467 patients with definite IE were operated on during the active phase and had a biological (37%) or mechanical (63%) valve replacement. Patients who received bioprostheses were older (62 vs 54years), more often had a history of cancer (9% vs 6%), and had moderate or severe renal disease (9% vs 4%); proportion of health care-associated IE was higher (26% vs 17%); intracardiac abscesses were more frequent (30% vs 23%). In-hospital and 1-year death rates were higher in the bioprosthesis group, 20.5% vs 14.0% (p=0.0009) and 25.3% vs 16.6% (p<.0001), respectively. In multivariable analysis, mechanical prostheses were less commonly implanted in older patients (odds ratio: 0.64 for every 10years), and in patients with a history of cancer (0.72), but were more commonly implanted in mitral position (1.60). Bioprosthesis was independently associated with 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 1.298).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IE who receive a biological valve replacement have significant differences in clinical characteristics compared to patients who receive a mechanical prosthesis. Biological valve replacement is independently associated with a higher in-hospital and 1-year mortality, a result which is possibly related to patient characteristics rather than valve dysfunction.

Coronary artery bypass grafting in a patient with pituitary adenoma: can alertness prevent tragedy?

Pituitary apoplexy is a rare, life-threatening complication that may occur after coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with pituitary adenomas. The dynamics of cardiopulmonary bypass may contribute to a sudden expansion of silent pituitary adenomas and result in the compression of surrounding structures. A range of clinical features have been described, and the condition requires prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent further complications. Herein, we present an uncomplicated case highlighting the importance of diagnosing pituitary apoplexy, ensuring high alertness to the condition, so as to prevent life-threatening tragedy due to missed diagnosis.

Recurrent Prosthetic Mitral Valve Dehiscence due to Infective Endocarditis: Discussion of Possible Causes

Prosthetic valves are being widely used in the treatment of heart valve disease. Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is one of the most catastrophic complications seen in these patients. In particular, prosthetic valve dehiscence can lead to acute decompensation, pulmonary edema, and cardiogenic shock. Here, we discuss the medical management of late PVE in a patient with a prior history of late and redo early PVE and recurrent dehiscence. According to the present case, we can summarize the learning points as follows. A prior history of infective endocarditis increases the risk of relapse or recurrence, and these patients should be evaluated very cautiously to prevent late complications. Adequate debridement of infected material is of paramount importance to prevent relapse. A history of dehiscence is associated with increased risk of relapse and recurrent dehiscence.