Key result
Infective endocarditis following surgical bioprosthesis compared with transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with similar 1-year mortality (46.5% vs 44.8%; P=0.697).
Why the study?
Scarce data were available comparing infective endocarditis following surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Does the clinical presentation, management, and 1-year mortality of infective endocarditis differ between patients who underwent TAVR versus SAVR?
Cohort (n=1,688)
Yes
Does the clinical presentation, management, and 1-year mortality of infective endocarditis differ between patients who underwent TAVR versus SAVR?
Absolute Event Rate: 46.5% vs 44.8%
p-value: p=0.697
Infective endocarditis after TAVR and SAVR presents with different clinical and microbiological profiles, but both are associated with a similarly high 1-year mortality of approximately 45%.
Differences in IE presentation, microbiology, and surgery rates after TAVR versus SAVR support tailored evaluation; leaves open whether this improves outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Scarce data are available comparing infective endocarditis (IE) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical presentation, microbiological profile, management, and outcomes of IE after SAVR versus TAVR. METHODS: Data were collected from the "Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International" (enrollment from 2005 to 2020) and the "International Collaboration on Endocarditis" (enrollment from 2000 to 2012) registries. Only patients with an IE affecting the aortic valve prosthesis were included. A 1:1 paired matching approach was used to compare patients with TAVR and SAVR. RESULTS: A total of 1688 patients were included. Of them, 602 (35.7%) had a surgical bioprosthesis (SB), 666 (39.5%) a mechanical prosthesis, 70 (4.2%) a homograft, and 350 (20.7%) a transcatheter heart valve. In the SAVR versus TAVR matched population, the rate of new moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was higher in the SB group (43.4% vs 13.5%; P < .001), and fewer vegetations were diagnosed in the SB group (62.5% vs 82%; P < .001). Patients with an SB had a higher rate of perivalvular extension (47.9% vs 27%; P < .001) and Staphylococcus aureus was less common in this group (13.4% vs 22%; P = .033). Despite a higher rate of surgery in patients with SB (44.4% vs 27.3%; P < .001), 1-year mortality was similar (SB: 46.5%; TAVR: 44.8%; log-rank P = .697). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical presentation, type of causative microorganism, and treatment differed between patients with an IE located on SB compared with TAVR. Despite these differences, both groups exhibited high and similar mortality at 1-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Panagides et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Infective endocarditis after aortic valve replacement (n=1,688). Surgical bioprosthesis (SAVR) vs. Transcatheter heart valve (TAVR) was evaluated on 1-year mortality (p=0.697). Infective endocarditis following surgical bioprosthesis compared with transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with similar 1-year mortality (46.5% vs 44.8%; P=0.697).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: