Key result
Emergency aortic valve replacement in patients with acute endocarditis and heart failure resulted in a long-term survival rate of 73% at a mean follow-up of 3.3 years.
Why the study?
Does emergency aortic valve replacement improve survival in patients with heart failure from aortic insufficiency during acute endocarditis?
Observational (n=18)
Does emergency aortic valve replacement improve survival in patients with heart failure from aortic insufficiency during acute endocarditis?
Emergency aortic valve replacement in patients with heart failure from aortic insufficiency during acute endocarditis yields a 73% long-term survival rate, supporting early surgical intervention.
May support emergency AVR in acute endocarditis with HF; case-report data leaves open need for prospective trials.
A surgically treated material comprising 18 patinets with heart failure from aortic insufficiency during acute endocarditis has been reviewed. At the time of operation the mean duration of heart failure was 3 weeks and duration of endocarditis 9 weeks. Blood culture was positive in half of the patients, 39% had predisposing valve disease, 14 (78%) had a preoperative heart catheterization. The peroperatively measured regurgitation averaged 55%. All 18 patients had an artifical valve implanted, and the mean observation time for 13 long-term survivors was 3 1/3 years. There were 3 postoperative and 2 late deaths. A long-term survival rate of 73% strongly supports early surgical treatment in patients with aortic insufficiency and heart failure during acute endocarditis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alstrup et al. (1976) conducted an observational in Acute bacterial endocarditis with aortic insufficiency and heart failure (n=18). Emergency aortic valve replacement was evaluated on Long-term survival. Emergency aortic valve replacement in patients with acute endocarditis and heart failure resulted in a long-term survival rate of 73% at a mean follow-up of 3.3 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: