Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Mikus et al. (Fri,) studied this question.