Infective Endocarditis With Paravalvular Extension: 35-Year Experience

Impact of Aortic Root Abscess on Surgical Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis

Locally destructive infective endocarditis (IE) of the aortic valve complicated by abscess formation in the aortic root may seriously affect patients' outcomes. Surgical repair of such conditions is often challenging. This is a single-center observational analysis of consecutive patients treated surgically for IE between 2009 and 2019. We divided the cohort into two groups considering the presence of an aortic root abscess and compared the characteristics and postoperative outcomes of patients accordingly. Moreover, we examined three different procedures performed in abscess patients regarding operative data and postoperative results: an isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), AVR with patch reconstruction of the aortic root (AVR + RR) or the Bentall procedure. The whole cohort comprised 665 patients, including 140 (21.0%) patients with an aortic root abscess and 525 (78.9%) as the control group. The abscess group of patients received either AVR (66.4%), AVR + RR (17.8%), or the Bentall procedure (15.7%). The mean age in the whole cohort was 62.1 ± 14.8. The mean EuroSCORE II was 8.0 ± 3.5 in the abscess group and 8.4 ± 3.7 in the control group (p = 0.259). The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 19.6% vs. 11.3% (p = 0.009) and 40.1% vs. 29.6% (p = 0.016) in the abscess compared to the control group. The multivariable regression analysis did not reveal aortic root abscess as an independent predictor of mortality. Rather, age > 60 correlated with 30-day mortality and infection with Streptococcus spp. correlated with 1-year mortality. In the analysis according to the performed procedures, KM estimates exhibited comparable long-term survival (log-rank p = 0.325). IE recurrence was noticed in 12.3% of patients after AVR, 26.7% after AVR + RR and none after Bentall (p = 0.069). We concluded that patients with an aortic root abscess suffer worse short and long-term outcomes compared to other IE patients. The post-procedural survival among ARA patients did not significantly vary based on the procedures performed.

An Unusual Case of an Acquired Aortopulmonary Fistula after Surgical Replacement of a Bicuspid Aortic Valve

Aortopulmonary fistulas are extremely rare and often occur as a result of long-standing aortic aneurysms. They are most frequently due to the erosion of a false aneurysm of the ascending or descending thoracic aorta into the pulmonary artery. Patients generally present with symptoms of acute decompensated heart failure due to a sudden formation of a left-to-right shunt. Here, we present the case of a 63-year-old male who acquired an aortopulmonary fistula four months after undergoing successful bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement.

Pseudoaneurysm of the sinus of Valsalva caused by infective endocarditis in a 7-year-old child with congenital heart disease

We report a case of a pseudoaneurysm in the sinus of Valsalva, secondary to infective endocarditis in a child with trisomy 21. The patient had a history of subaortic stenosis, bicuspid aortic valve, and ventricular septal defect. Patch closure of the ostium of the pseudoaneurysm and aortic valve replacement was performed. The patient was discharged without severe complications.

Clinical Outcome of Reoperation for Mechanical Prosthesis at Aortic Position

AIM

Redo aortic valve surgery is usually associated with a high risk of mortality and complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of reoperation after prior mechanical prosthesis implantation at the aortic position.

METHOD

The clinical data of 146 consecutive patients who underwent reoperation at the aortic position between 2003 and 2019 were analysed.

RESULTS

Mean age was 51.5±12.7 years and 69 (47.3%) were female. The median interval from prior surgery to redo aortic valve surgery was 6 years. The aetiologies were pannus formation with prosthetic aortic stenosis in 62 cases (42.5%), prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) in five (3.4%), PVE with perivalvular leakage (PVL) in 16 (11.0%), PVL in 45 (30.8%), thrombosis in seven (4.8%), and aortic disease in 11 (7.5%). As for surgical procedure, aortic valve replacement was performed in 81 cases (55.5%), Bentall in 34 (23.3%), PVL repair in six (4.1%), and pannus debridement in 25 (17.1%). Fourteen (14) (9.6%) patients expired perioperatively. Prolonged ventilation time and postoperative renal failure were proved to be significant independent predictors of mortality according to multivariate analysis. Overall survival was 87.8%±7.4% and 76.4%±15.1% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Survival was 87.7%±13.7% and 84.2%±15.6% in the pannus group, and 84.5%±12.6% and 74.6%±19.4% in the non-pannus group at 5 and 10 years, respectively (p=0.951). Survival was 87.5%±14.2% and 75.8%±22.7% in the PVL group and 84.7%±11.9% and 81.6%±13.5% in the non-PVL group at 5 and 10 years, respectively (p=0.365).

CONCLUSIONS

Pannus formation and PVL are two major indications for reoperation of mechanical prosthesis at the aortic position. Redo aortic valve surgery has a satisfactory outcome but with a high risk of complications. Long-term survival of patients seems not to be related to the aetiology. Final decision-making of redo aortic valve surgery should be based on aetiology.

Outcomes of patients with acute prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic valve endocarditis is burdened by high mortality and morbidity. We reviewed our experience in the management of patients with acute prosthetic aortic valve infection and studied the implications and outcomes associated with surgical treatment and medical therapy.

METHODS

Data of 118 consecutive patients admitted during the period 2008-2018 with definite acute prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis, and presenting a surgical indication, were retrieved from the hospital database. Univariate and multivariate analysis were undertaken to study the association of preoperative characteristics with hospital mortality and the probability of undergoing a reoperation. Survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

In the overall population, prosthesis dehiscence was independently associated with the possibility of undergoing surgical reoperation, while presentation with embolic stroke was associated with medical treatment. Hospital mortality was 24%, medical treatment was found to be independently associated with early death. One hundred (85%) patients underwent redo procedures; aortic valve replacement was performed in 53 and full root replacement in 47. Postoperative hospital mortality was 17%. Survival at 1-, 5-, and 8-years was 78%, 74%, and 66%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation and recurrent endocarditis was 95% at 8-year follow-up.Hospital mortality in patients who did not receive a redo operation was 61% with a survival rate of 17% at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical mortality after reoperation for prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis is still high but mid-term outcomes are satisfactory. Failure to undertake surgery when indicated is an independent risk factor for early death.

The Use of Biological Heart Valves

BACKGROUND

Biological heart-valve prostheses have undergone continuous devel- opment up to the present, and technological advances have been made in catheter- assisted valve systems (transcatheter aortic valve implantation, TAVI) and minimally invasive routes of application. These parallel trends have led to major changes in therapeutic strategies, widening the spectrum of patients who are candidates for biological aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic search in PubMed employing the search terms "conventional biological aortic pros- thesis," "rapid deployment prosthesis," and "transcatheter aortic valve implantation/ replacement."

RESULTS

Among biological heart-valve prostheses, a distinction is drawn between stented (conventional, rapid-deployment, and catheter-assisted) and non-stented types. The long-term durability of conventional, surgically implantable biological valve protheses is by far the best documented: the reported 5-year reoperation rates range from 13.4% to 36.6%, and the pacemaker implantation rate is ca. 4%. Rapid-deployment prostheses combine the advantages of conventional and ca- theter-assisted techniques and facilitate minimally invasive approaches. The TAVI method is currently recommended for high- and intermediate-risk patients, while conventional valve replacement remains the method of choice for those at low risk. Rapid-deployment and TAVI prostheses is associated with a higher pacemaker im- plantation rate than conventional prostheses: these rates are 8.5-15.3% for TAVI and 6.0-8.8% for rapid-deployment valves. The intermediate-term durability of catheter-assisted and rapid-deployment prostheses appears promising, but their long-term durability is still unclear.

CONCLUSION

The further development of biological heart-valve prostheses in the form of improved conventional, transcatheter, and rapid-deployment prostheses now enables individualized treatment. Before any such procedure is performed, the car- diac team must assess the patient's risk profile and the advantages and disadvan- tages of each type of prosthesis to determine which is best.

Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis

Background

Current retrospective evidence suggests similar clinical and superior hemodynamic outcomes of the Sorin Freedom Solo stentless aortic valve (SFS) (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) compared to the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented aortic valve (CEP) (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, California, USA). To date, no reports exist describing case-matched long-term outcomes and analysis for treatment of native valve endocarditis (NVE).

Methods

From 2004 through 2014, 77 consecutive patients (study group, 59.7% male, 68.9 ± 12.5 years, logEuroSCORE II 7.6 ± 12.3%) received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the SFS. A control group of patients after SAVR with the CEP was retrieved from our database and matched to the study group regarding 15 parameters including preoperative endocarditis. Acute perioperative outcomes and follow-up data (mean follow-up time 48.7±29.8 months, 95% complete) were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

No differences in early mortality occurred during 30-day follow up (3/77; 3.9% vs. 4/77; 5.2%; p = 0.699). Echocardiographic findings revealed lower postprocedural transvalvular pressure gradients (max. 17.0 ± 8.2 vs. 24.5 ± 9.2 mmHg, p< 0.001/ mean pressure of 8.4 ± 4.1 vs. 13.1 ± 5.9 mmHg, p< 0.001) in the SFS group. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) (5.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.04) and valve explantation due to SVD or prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) (9.1% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.04) was more frequent in the SFS group. All-cause mortality during follow-up was 20.8% vs. 14.3% (p = 0.397). When patients were divided into subgroups of NVE and respective utilized bioprosthesis, the SFS presented impaired outcomes regarding mortality in NVE cases (p = 0.031).

Conclusions

The hemodynamic superiority of the SFS was confirmed in this comparison. However, clinical outcomes in terms of SVD and PVE rates, as well as survival after NVE, were inferior in this study. Therefore, we are reluctant to recommend utilization of the SFS for treatment of NVE.