Why the study?
Does surgical treatment for active infective prosthetic valve endocarditis yield different survival outcomes between early and late PVE?
Does surgical treatment for active infective prosthetic valve endocarditis yield different survival outcomes between early and late PVE?
Surgery for active infective prosthetic valve endocarditis carries high in-hospital and long-term mortality, with no significant survival difference between early and late PVE presentations.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High mortality persists after surgery for active PVE irrespective of timing; leaves open whether presentation informs risk stratification or intervention thresholds.
OBJECTIVE: We retrospectively analysed the profile and outcome of surgically treated patients with active infective prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) over a period of 22 years. METHODS: Between May 1986 and December 2008, a total of 1313 patients with active infective endocarditis (AIE) were operated on, 349 (26.6%) of them for PVE. Of these, 77 (22.1%) had to be operated upon due to early PVE (≤60 days, n=55 men, median age: 58 years) and 272 (77.9%) due to late PVE (n=200 men, median age: 63 years). A large proportion of patients were referred to our department with advanced endocarditis and in a condition of cardiac and pulmonary decompensation. A total of 226 (64.8%) patients developed periannular abscess. Operations consisted of 80 aortic valve, 45 mitral valve, 39 double valve and 165 aortic root replacements, 134 of them with a homograft. Perioperative characteristics, probability of survival, freedom from recurrence and predictors for hospital mortality were analysed. Follow-up (maximum: 19.4 years) was completed in 96.3% (total: 1118 patient-years). RESULTS: There was high early and late mortality. Overall in-hospital mortality was 28.4% (99/349). The 30-day, 1-, 5- and 10-year survival for the whole PVE study population was 71.4 ± 2.4%, 58.7 ± 2.7%, 44.5 ± 3% and 31.7 ± 3.5% with no significant differences between the early and late PVE patients: 67 ± 5.4%, 55.9 ± 5.8%, 49.4 ± 6.2% and 29.7 ± 7.6%, compared to 72.4 ± 3%, 60 ± 3%, 43.5 ± 3.3% and 31.1 ± 3.8% (p=0.93). Predictors of early mortality were mechanical support (risk ratio (RR): 4.3), emergency operation (RR: 2.1), preoperative high doses of catecholamines (RR: 1.8), mitral valve replacement (RR: 1.5) and age at operation (RR: 1.1). Freedom from re-operation due to recurrent endocarditis at 10 years was 85.8 ± 5.6% for early PVE compared to 92.1 ± 2.3% for late PVE patients (p=0.17). Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) (18.1%) was the most frequent causative micro-organism. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for active infective PVE continues to be challenging. It not only carries a high in-hospital mortality but is also associated with a high long-term mortality risk. Early PVE patients were in a more severe condition than late PVE patients. Preoperative status, complications and co-morbidity of PVE patients strongly predict early outcome. Because of the potential risk of late complications, PVE patients need close clinical follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Musci et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: