Allograft aortic root replacement in prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis: a review of 32 patients

Aortic Root Replacement Versus Patch Repair for Aortic Valve Endocarditis With Root Abscesses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Complex aortic valve infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious condition requiring surgical intervention. The optimal surgical approach remains a topic of debate. We sought to evaluate and compare the immediate and long-term results of aortic root replacement (ARR) versus patch repair (PR) in patients with aortic valve IE and root abscess.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was completed to identify relevant studies published from inception to April 2023. We included studies reporting outcomes of ARR and PR in patients with aortic valve IE complicated by root abscess. Primary endpoints were short and long-term mortality and re-operation rates. Secondary endpoints included permanent pacemaker implantation, single-arm pooled incidence of mortality, recurrence, and re-operation.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria (n=2,554). We found no difference in short-term mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.80; I2=34%). The PR group had superior long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.90; I2=25%), however, they also had a significantly increased need for re-operation (HR 1.79; 95% CI 1.11-2.88; I2=0%). There were no differences in postoperative permanent pacemaker insertion (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.34-1.12; I2=0%). Using a meta-analysis of proportions, the pooled rate of documented IE recurrence following was 5% after ARR and 8% after PR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows a long-term survival benefit associated with PR for aortic root abscesses. This benefit is offset by a higher incidence of re-operations and IE recurrence. ARR appears to confer better protection against recurrence. However, based on the available weak evidence, individualised approaches should still be considered until further robust data is available to guide treatment decisions.

First-Degree Heart Block: The Guiding Light to Discovering an Aortic Root Abscess

Minor conduction abnormalities such as first-degree heart blocks are generally overlooked on electrocardiogram (EKG) as their impact on clinical management is usually not substantial. However, they can be an important screening tool for early diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) and associated perivalvular complications, especially in patients with surgical valve replacements.

This case report describes a 58-year-old male with a past medical history of bicuspid aortic valve status post replacement five years prior to presentation who initially presented with presumed symptoms of a complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) and later developed chest pain and shortness of breath. He showed no initial signs of infection including negative blood and urine cultures. EKG showed new onset prolonged PR interval. He then underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) which showed prosthetic valve dysfunction and subsequently underwent transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) which revealed vegetations on all leaflets and circumferential peri-aortic abscess encompassing both coronary ostia and extending towards the tricuspid and mitral valve leaflets. The patient then underwent redo-sternotomy for dissection of mediastinal adhesions, extraction of the aortic bio-prosthesis, and debridement of the aortic root abscess. The aortic root was replaced with a homograft and the valve cultures were positive for Enterococcus faecium. The patient developed complete heart block afterwards and received a permanent pacemaker; repeat cultures showed no further evidence of infection.

This case report is presented to reiterate the importance of early detection of IE-related aortic valve abscess and their rare sequelae. Early screening for conduction abnormalities via EKG and subsequently a TEE can allow prompt identification and management of valvular abnormalities to prevent life-threatening complications and improve patient outcomes.

Outcomes of nonpledgeted horizontal mattress suture technique for mitral valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Most surgeons favor the pledgeted suture technique for heart valve replacements because they believe it decreases the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL). We hypothesized that the use of nonpledgeted rather than pledgeted sutures during mitral valve replacement (MVR) may decrease the incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) and risk of a major PVL.

METHODS

We analyzed 263 patients, divided into 175 patients who underwent MVR with nonpledgeted sutures from January 2003 to December 2013 and 88 patients who underwent MVR with pledgeted sutures from January 1995 to December 2001. We compared the occurrence of PVL and PVE between these groups.

RESULTS

In patients who underwent MVR with or without tricuspid valve surgery and/or a Maze operation, PVL occurred in 1.1% of the pledgeted group and 2.9% of the nonpledgeted group. The incidence of PVE was 2.9% in the nonpledgeted group and 1.1% in the pledgeted group. No differences were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that a nonpledgeted suture technique can be an alternative to the traditional use of pledgeted sutures in most patients who undergo MVR, with no significant difference in the incidence of PVL.

Treatment of prosthetic valve endocarditis complicated by destruction of the aortic annulus

PURPOSE

It has been reported that surgical treatment for prosthetic valve endocarditis complicated by destruction of the aortic annulus is associated with high mortality and morbidity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of our surgical strategy for this situation.

METHODS

Between October 2003 and April 2009, eight patients (mean age 68.6 years) with prosthetic valve endocarditis complicated by destruction of the aortic annulus were surgically treated at our hospital. We use a relatively simple procedure consisting of a patch plasty of the abscess cavity in addition to complete removal of the infected tissue of the abscess cavity followed by standard aortic valve replacement. All patients had active endocarditis and were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Preoperative echocardiography revealed that four patients had moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, and two had mitral valve endocarditis as well.

RESULTS

There were no operative deaths (≤30 days). Cardiac complications included paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in three patients and transient atrioventricular block in one. One patient died of multiple organ failure 66 days after the surgery. The overall in-hospital mortality was 12.5%. Patients were followed-up for 6-49 months (mean 31 months). There was no recurrent prosthetic valve endocarditis. One patient required reoperation (mitral annuloplasty and redo aortic valve replacement). There were two late deaths: lung cancer in one and multiple organ failure related to pneumonia after the aforementioned redo operation in the other.

CONCLUSION

Our simple procedure for complicated prosthetic valve endocarditis yielded excellent early and midterm outcomes.

Reoperations for aortic false aneurysms after cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Aortic false aneurysm is a rare complication after cardiac surgery. Aortic dissection, infection, arterial wall degeneration, and poor surgical technique are recognized as risk factors for the occurrence of postsurgical false aneurysm. Despite some recent reports about percutaneous false aneurysm exclusion, a complex surgical reoperation is needed in most of the cases.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our experience in 43 patients who received a reoperation for postsurgical aortic false aneurysm in the last 14 years. Thirty-three patients were male. The mean age was 60 ± 12 years. Most of the patients received prior aortic surgery on the aortic root, the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, and the descending thoracic aorta (38 patients). False aneurysm was diagnosed during follow-up evaluation in the absence of any symptoms in 23 cases. Univariate and multivariate analyses on 18 perioperative variables were performed.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 6.9% (3 patients). The postoperative course was complicated in 17 cases (39%). At multivariate analysis, a preoperative history of coronary artery disease and postoperative sepsis were independent risk factors for hospital mortality. Survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years were 94%, 79%, and 68%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation was 86% at 1 year and 72% at 5 and 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high postoperative complication rate, a reoperation for postsurgical aortic false aneurysm can be performed with acceptable mortality and good mid-term and long-term outcomes.

Late presentation of aortic root abscess in endocarditis with coronary ischemia

Formation of a large aortic root abscess is an infrequent complication of aortic valve endocarditis in adults. Extrinsic compression of the coronary arteries by this abscess is still rarer. Here, we report a case of a 22-year-old male with aortic root abscess, who presented 2 months after the completion of treatment of endocarditis with exertional angina. Coronary angiogram revealed compression of proximal left anterior descending and left circumflex arteries by the abscess. The patient was successfully treated with pericardial patch exclusion of the abscess cavity and coronary artery bypass graft. The presentation of aortic root abscess with myocardial ischemia as a late complication of treated endocarditis has not been reported earlier.

[Early surgery in infective endocarditis. Retrospective study apropos of 30 cases]

AIM

The aim of this study is to stress the interest of the early surgery in infective endocarditis (IE), its indications and prognostic implications.

METHODS

It is a retrospective descriptive study of 30 cases (29 men and 1 woman with an average age of 35+/-12 years) with IE underwent surgery management in the acute phase between September 1993 and June 2005.

RESULTS

They were 25 rheumatic lesions, 2 aortic bicuspids and 3 mechanical valves prosthesis. Four twenty-six percent of the patients were operated for hemodynamic deterioration and 10% for embolic complication. We report 3 cases (that is to say 10%) of IE late form on prosthesis. Three patients died in the first post operative month by respectively total desinsertion of mitral prosthesis on peroperative, 1 septic shock at the 13th post operative day and 1 tamponade at the 14th postoperative day. On 72 months an average follow-up, 26 were controlled regularly: 25 evolved favourably and 1 died in third postoperative year (severe heart failure).

CONCLUSION

A high early surgery rate is related to good long term results and does not increase in hospital mortality. The reduced mortality was particularly evident among patients with moderate to severe congestive heart failure.

Prosthetic valve endocarditis

Prosthetic valve endocarditis is a catastrophic complication of cardiac valve replacement, associated with high mortality rates. Medical treatment is effective in a few instances of endocarditis involving the leaflets alone in bioprostheses. However, accurate diagnosis, better myocardial protection, and improved surgical strategies have led to better survival in patients undergoing surgery after failed conservative therapy. This comprehensive review addresses various issues involved in the management of this complication.

Cryopreserved Aortic Viable Homograft for Active Aortic Endocarditis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the short and long-term results of cryopreserved aortic viable homograft (CAVH) in the treatment of active aortic endocarditis.

METHODS

From January 1992 to December 2002, 104 patients (23 females, 81 males) with a mean age 51 +/- 13 years (from 14 to 77) underwent CAVH replacement for active aortic valve endocarditis. Seventy-six patients (73%) had endocarditis of the native aortic valve, 28 (27%) had endocarditis of prosthetic aortic valve; among them, eight had a recurrent infection. Eighty-three patients (80%) had isolated aortic endocarditis. Plurivalvular endocarditis was observed in 21 (20%) patients, (aortic and mitral in 16 patients, aortic and tricuspid in 5). Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography was systematically used. Anatomical lesions included perforations in 89 (86%) patients, vegetations in 79 (77%) patients and periannular extensions in 60 (58%) patients. Precise bacteriologic diagnosis was available in 82 (80%) patients.

RESULTS

Cryopreserved aortic viable homografts were inserted using the aortic root replacement technique in 93 (89%) patients and the subcoronary technique in 11 (11%) patients. Associated procedures were performed in 38 (37%) patients: mitral (n = 23) and tricuspid (n = 3) valve repair, partial homograft mitral valve replacement (n = 3), partial homograft tricuspid valve replacement (n = 3), coronary bypass graft (n = 3), and ascending aorta replacement (n = 3). Hospital mortality was 5 (5%) patients. Causes of death included: myocardial infarction (n = 2), myocardial failure (n = 2), and multiorgan failure (n = 1). During follow-up (61 +/- 36 months, from 6 months to 136 months), 9 secondary deaths occurred (2 were cardiac related), 14 aortic valvular redo surgeries were performed (2 for nonstructural failure, 6 for structural failure, and 6 for endocarditis). Actuarial survival at ten years was 83%, with 93% of the patients free from cardiac death. At ten years, actuarial rate for freedom from reoperation was 76% and freedom from recurrent endocarditis was 93%. No thromboembolic complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAVH has proven its effectiveness in treating the destructive lesions of active aortic endocarditis. It has provided satisfactory immediate and long-term results. Allowing the possibility to avoid a prosthetic material, CAVH could represent an option for surgically treating active aortic endocarditis more rapidly.

Replacement of the aortic root for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis: Prosthetic composite versus aortic allograft root replacement

OBJECTIVE

Aortic root replacement for prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis with accompanying destruction of the aortic root is a well-established surgical intervention. However, there is still no consensus whether prosthetic material or allogeneic material should be used. Here we report on our experience with prosthetic composite and aortic allograft root replacement in such patients during a 10-year interval.

METHODS

From 1991 through 2001, 29 patients with prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis combined with aortic root destruction underwent reoperation at our institution. Sixteen patients received aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic root allograft (group A) and 13 with a prosthetic composite graft (group B). The interval between the initial operation and reoperation was 29 months (range, 5-168 months) in group A and 55 months (range, 7-248 months) in group B.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality was 18.5% (n = 5 patients, 3 in group A and 2 in group B). Median follow-up was 21 months (range, 1-48 months) for group A and 34 months (range, 1-152 months) for group B (P >.2). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 81% +/- 10% and 81% +/- 10% in group A and 85% +/- 10% and 85% +/- 10% in group B, respectively. No patient underwent reoperation for recurrent prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that excellent long-term results can be achieved regardless of the material used for aortic root replacement in patients with prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis.

Infections of intracardiac devices

Intracardiac devices are increasingly used to correct hemodynamically dysfunctional valves and electrophysiologic abnormalities. These devices become infected at relatively low rates. Nevertheless, when these low rates are applied to widely used devices, significant numbers of infections result. Additionally, these infections have been associated with high degrees of morbidity and high mortality rates. This article reviews the epidemiology, microbiology, clinical presentation, and medical as well as surgical therapy of intracardiac device infections.

Replacing the ascending aorta and aortic valve for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis: is using prosthetic material contraindicated?

BACKGROUND

The use of prosthetic material (rather than a homograft) for ascending aorta/aortic valve replacement (Bentall procedure) in cases of acute prosthetic valve endocarditis is controversial. We report favorable results using this technique almost exclusively (a homograft was used in only 3 patients with hematological problems) during a 12-year interval.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients (55 +/- 14 years; 22 male) underwent a Bentall procedure for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis between 1988 and 2000. Twenty-five patients had undergone previous aortic valve replacement (1 with concomitant mitral valve replacement, 4 with coronary artery bypass grafting), and 3 had had a previous Bentall operation. The median interval between initial surgery and reoperation was 13 months (range, 1 to 106). Sixty-eight percent of operations were urgent or emergencies. Ninety-three percent of patients had significant aortic regurgitation; complete annuloaortic dehiscence occurred in 71%, and in 57%, an abscess was found. Causative organisms were identified in 25 of 28 patients: Staphylococcus epidermidis (9), Staphylococcus aureus (7), Streptococcus viridans (6), Pseudomonas (2), and Legionella (1).

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients had mechanical and 5 had biological valves implanted during the Bentall procedure. Hypothermic circulatory arrest was used in 64%. Hospital mortality was 11%: there was one intraoperative death, and two before discharge (one cardiac, one sepsis). Eighty-nine percent survived without stroke. During follow-up (median, 44.5 months; complete in 92%), 1 patient died of recurrent endocarditis at 4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that prosthetic root replacement may be superior to use of a homograft for acute aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis, with only a 4% incidence of recurrent endocarditis and reoperation.

Aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allograft for prosthetic valve endocarditis

BACKGROUND Our strategy has been to treat aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) with radical debridement of infected tissue and aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic allograft. This study examines the effectiveness of this strategy on hospital mortality and morbidity, recurrent endocarditis, and survival.

METHODS

From 1988 through 2000, 103 patients with aortic PVE underwent root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic allograft. Abscesses were present in 78%, and aortoventricular discontinuity was present in 40%. Thirty-two patients had at least one previous operation for endocarditis. In 23 patients with a history of native valve endocarditis, the allograft was implanted after one episode (17 patients), two episodes (5 patients), or three episodes of PVE (1 patient). In the 80 patients without a history of native valve endocarditis, the allograft was placed after one previous aortic valve replacement (57 patients), two (19), or three (4) previous aortic valve replacements. Among the 92 patients with positive cultures, 52 had staphylococcal organisms, 20 had streptococcal, 6 had fungal, 4 had gram-negative, and 6 had enterococcal organisms. Mean follow-up was 4.3 +/- 2.9 years.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality was 3.9%. Permanent pacemakers were required in 31 patients. Survival at 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years was 90%, 86%, 73%, and 56%, respectively, with a risk of 5.3% per year after 6 months. Four patients underwent reoperation for recurrent PVE of the allograft (95% freedom from recurrent PVE at > or = 2 years). Risk of recurrent PVE peaked at 9 months and then declined to a low level by 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy of radical debridement and aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic allograft for aortic PVE is safe, effective, and recommended.

Infections of intracardiac devices

Intracardiac devices are increasingly used to correct hemodynamically dysfunctional valves and electrophysiologic abnormalities. These devices become infected at relatively low rates. Nevertheless, when these low rates are applied to widely used devices, significant numbers of infections result. Additionally, these infections have been associated with high degrees of morbidity and high mortality rates. This article reviews the epidemiology, microbiology, clinical presentation, and medical as well as surgical therapy of intracardiac device infections.

Prosthetic valve endocarditis due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium: treatment with chloramphenicol plus minocycline

We report a case of prosthetic valve endocarditis and persistent bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. The combination of parenteral chloramphenicol plus minocycline therapy was administered for 8 weeks and resulted in cure after treatment with quinupristin-dalfopristin had failed.

Treatment and prevention of infective endocarditis

The paper presents the most recent recommendations for the treatment and prevention of infective endocarditis (IE). The treatment of IE is complex and requires close collaboration among specialists in infectious diseases, cardiology, cardiac surgery and microbiology. The mainstay of medical treatment is antibiotic therapy. Theoretical considerations regarding vegetations and antibiotics have practical consequences on the route and modalities of administration of antibiotics and on the techniques used to monitor treatment. The choice of antibiotics depends on the microorganism (streptococci, enterococci, staphylococci, HACEK group [Haemophilus sp., Actinobacillus sp., Cardiobacterium sp., Eikenella sp. and Kingella sp.], Coxiella, Brucella, Legionella, Bartonella, fungi) and on whether IE occurs on native or prosthetic valves. Treatment of IE with negative blood cultures is particularly difficult. Cardiac surgery is often needed during the bacteriologically active period (in ~50% of patients). The decision to intervene and the optimal timing of the intervention requires careful consideration of multiple potential risks: the haemodynamic risk, the infectious risk, the risk due to cardiac lesions, the risk due to extracardiac complications and the risk due to the location of infective endocarditis. Even though the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis of IE is not completely proven, it is recommended for selected patients who undergo an at-risk procedure. Lists of cardiac conditions and of medical procedures at risk are presented; specific antibiotic prophylactic regimens for dental and upper respiratory tract procedures in out-patients, procedures under general anaesthesia and urological and GI procedures are outlined.

Repeat Tricuspid and Mitral Valve Replacement for Enterococcal Endocarditis

A man who underwent tricuspid and mitral valve replacement with bioprostheses at 45 years of age required a second double valve replacement at 50, a third tricuspid valve replacement for enterococcal endocarditis at 57, and a third mitral valve replacement for relapsing enterococcal endocarditis at the age of 60. Recurrent Enterococcus faecalis prosthetic valve endocarditis was thought to be due to colon polyps causing intermittent infection.

Long term results of mechanical prostheses for treatment of active infective endocarditis

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the long term results of mechanical prostheses for treating active infective endocarditis.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study of a consecutive series of patients diagnosed with infective endocarditis and operated on in the active phase of the infection for insertion of a mechanical prosthesis.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre in a metropolitan area.

RESULTS

Between 1975 and 1997, 637 cases of infective endocarditis were diagnosed in the centre. Of these, 436 were left sided (with overall mortality of 20.3%). Surgical treatment in the active phase of the infection was needed in 141 patients (72% native, 28% prosthetic infective endocarditis). Mechanical prostheses were used in 131 patients. Operative mortality was 30.5% (40 patients). Ninety one survivors were followed up prospectively for (mean (SD)) 5.4 (4.5) years. Thirteen patients developed prosthetic valve dysfunction. Nine patients suffered reinfection: four of these (4%) were early and five were late. The median time from surgery for late reinfection was 1.4 years. During follow up, 12 patients died. Excluding operative mortality, actuarial survival was 86.6% at five years and 83.7% at 10 years; actuarial survival free from death, reoperation, and reinfection was 73.1% at five years and 59.8% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients surviving acute infective endocarditis and receiving mechanical prostheses, the rate of early reinfection compares well with reported results of homografts. In addition, prosthesis dysfunction rate is low and long term survival is good. These data should prove useful for comparison with long term studies, when available, using other types of valve surgery in active infective endocarditis.

Long term results of mechanical prostheses for treatment of active infective endocarditis

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the long term results of mechanical prostheses for treating active infective endocarditis.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study of a consecutive series of patients diagnosed with infective endocarditis and operated on in the active phase of the infection for insertion of a mechanical prosthesis.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre in a metropolitan area.

RESULTS

Between 1975 and 1997, 637 cases of infective endocarditis were diagnosed in the centre. Of these, 436 were left sided (with overall mortality of 20.3%). Surgical treatment in the active phase of the infection was needed in 141 patients (72% native, 28% prosthetic infective endocarditis). Mechanical prostheses were used in 131 patients. Operative mortality was 30.5% (40 patients). Ninety one survivors were followed up prospectively for (mean (SD)) 5.4 (4.5) years. Thirteen patients developed prosthetic valve dysfunction. Nine patients suffered reinfection: four of these (4%) were early and five were late. The median time from surgery for late reinfection was 1.4 years. During follow up, 12 patients died. Excluding operative mortality, actuarial survival was 86.6% at five years and 83.7% at 10 years; actuarial survival free from death, reoperation, and reinfection was 73.1% at five years and 59.8% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients surviving acute infective endocarditis and receiving mechanical prostheses, the rate of early reinfection compares well with reported results of homografts. In addition, prosthesis dysfunction rate is low and long term survival is good. These data should prove useful for comparison with long term studies, when available, using other types of valve surgery in active infective endocarditis.

Immediate and long-term results of valve replacement for native and prosthetic valve endocarditis

BACKGROUND

The objective of the present study was to compare current results of prosthetic valve replacement following acute infective native valve endocarditis (NVE) with that of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). Prosthetic valve replacement is often necessary for acute infective endocarditis. Although valve repair and homografts have been associated with excellent outcome, homograft availability and the importance of valvular destruction often dictate prosthetic valve replacement in patients with acute bacterial endocarditis.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the experience with prosthetic valve replacement following acute NVE and PVE between 1988 and 1998 was performed at the Montreal Heart Institute.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients (57 men and 20 women, mean age 48 +/- 16 years) with acute infective endocarditis underwent valve replacement. Fifty patients had NVE and 27 had PVE. Four patients (8%) with NVE died within 30 days of operation and there were no hospital deaths in patients with PVE. Survival at 1, 5, and 7 years averaged 80% +/- 6%, 76% +/- 6%, and 76% +/- 6% for NVE and 70% +/- 9%, 59% +/- 10%, and 55% +/- 10% for PVE, respectively (p = 0.15). Reoperation-free survival at 1, 5, and 7 years averaged 80% +/- 6%, 76% +/- 6%, and 76% +/- 6% for NVE and 45% +/- 10%, 40% +/- 10%, and 36% +/- 9% for PVE (p = 0.003). Five-year survival for NVE averaged 75% +/- 9% following aortic valve replacement and 79% +/- 9% following mitral valve replacement. Five-year survival for PVE averaged 66% +/- 12% following aortic valve replacement and 43% +/- 19% following mitral valve replacement (p = 0.75). Nine patients underwent reoperation during follow-up: indications were prosthesis infection in 4 patients (3 mitral, 1 aortic), dehiscence of mitral prosthesis in 3, and dehiscence of aortic prosthesis in 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthetic valve replacement for NVE resulted in good long-term patient survival with a minimal risk of reoperation compared with patients who underwent valve replacement for PVE. In patients with PVE, those who needed reoperation had recurrent endocarditis or noninfectious periprosthetic dehiscence.

Surgery for active culture-positive endocarditis: determinants of early and late outcome

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to describe a single unit experience in the surgical treatment of active culture-positive endocarditis and identify determinants of early and late outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred eighteen consecutive patients with positive blood culture up to 3 weeks before operation (or positive valve culture) and macroscopic evidence of lesions typical for endocarditis, undergoing operation between January 1973 and December 1996 in Southampton, were evaluated. The aortic valve was infected in 53 (48.9%), the mitral in 46 (39%), both aortic and mitral in 12 (10.1%), the tricuspid in 4 (3.9%), and the pulmonary valve in 3 (2.5%). Native valve endocarditis was present in 83 (70.3%) and prosthetic valve endocarditis in 35 (29.7%). Streptococci and staphylococci were the most common pathogens. Mean follow-up was 5.6 years (range, 0 to 25 years).

RESULTS

Operative mortality was 7.6% (9 patients). Endocarditis recurred in 8 (6.7%). A reoperation was required in 12 (10.2%). There was 24 late deaths, 17 of them cardiac. Actuarial freedom from recurrent endocarditis, reoperation, late cardiac death, and long-term survival at 10 years were 85.9%, 87.2%, 85.2%, and 73.1%, respectively. On multiple regression analysis the following were independent adverse predictors: pulmonary edema (p = 0.007) and impaired left ventricular function (p = 0.02) for operative mortality; prosthetic valve endocarditis (p = 0.01) for recurrent infection; myocardial invasion by the infection (p = 0.01) and reoperation (p = 0.04) for late cardiac death; and coagulase-negative staphylococcus (p = 0.02), annular abscess (p = 0.02), and longer intensive care unit stay (p = 0.02) for long-term survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Operation for active culture-positive endocarditis carries an acceptable mortality. Freedom from recurrent infection, reoperation, and long-term survival are satisfactory. In our data, patients' hemodynamic status at operation was the major determinant of operative mortality. Prosthetic valve endocarditis, coagulase-negative staphylococcus, and annular or myocardial infectious invasion were the critical adverse determinants of late outcome.

Reoperations on the ascending aorta and aortic root: pitfalls and results in 134 patients

BACKGROUND

This analysis was performed to evaluate the results of reoperations on the ascending aorta and aortic root.

METHODS

All reoperations (n = 134) on the aortic root and ascending aorta performed between February 1981 and April 1998 were retrospectively analyzed. Indications for reintervention were a true or false aneurysm (35%), acute dissection (3.0%), aortic valve stenosis and/or insufficiency (23.1%), prosthetic valve endocarditis (32.8%), and combinations (4.5%). The principal reoperations performed were aortic root replacement (composite graft, freestyle, aortic allograft, or pulmonary autograft) in 116 patients, ascending aortic replacement in 10 patients, and closure of a false aneurysm in 5 patients. Results were analyzed using univariate statistical methods.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality was 6.6% (8 patients). Univariate predictors of hospital death were preoperative functional class III or IV (p = 0.02), an interval of less than 6 months between the primary and actual operation (p = 0.02), preoperative creatinine level of more than 200 micromol/L (p = 0.001), acute aortic dissection (p = 0.001), intraoperative technical problems (p = 0.001), and postoperative dialysis (p = 0.001). Freedom from repetitive reoperation was 99% at 1 year and 98% at 5 and 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperations on the aortic root and ascending aorta can be performed with an early mortality which is very acceptable.

Cryopreserved aortic allografts for aortic root reconstruction: a single institution's experience

BACKGROUND

An evaluation of early and long-term results of aortic root replacement with cryopreserved aortic allografts and echocardiographic follow-up of allograft valve function was performed.

METHODS

From September 1989 through May 1998, 132 patients aged 17 to 77 years (mean, 50.8 +/- 14.8 years) underwent freestanding aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic allograft. Eighty-six (65.1%) patients had New York Heart Association class III or IV functional status before operation, and 27 (20.5%) patients underwent emergency operation. Fifty-nine (44.7%) patients had undergone previous cardiac operations. The cause of aortic disease was acute endocarditis in 63 (47.7%) patients, healed endocarditis in 15 (11.3%), degenerative in 20 (15.2%), congenital in 20 (15.2%), failed prosthesis in 10 (7.6%) and rheumatic in 4 (3.0%). Follow-up was complete, with a mean of 42 months.

RESULTS

There were 12 hospital deaths (9.1%; 70% confidence limits [CL], 6.6% and 11.6%); 9 of them were operated on for active endocarditis (p = 0.062). Multivariate analysis determined age older than 65 years (p = 0.012) and emergency operation (p = 0.009) as independent risk factors for hospital mortality. During follow-up, 6 (5.0%; 70% CL, 3.0% and 7.0%) patients died. Cumulative survival rate for the entire group was 81.8% +/- 5.4% at 8 years. Freedom from reoperation for structural valve failure was 100%, freedom from reoperation for any cause was 96.3% +/- 1.8% at 8 years. Freedom from endocarditis at 8 years was 97.9% +/- 1.4%. Follow-up of allograft valve function showed no or trivial aortic regurgitation in 97% of patients and absence of stenosis of the allograft in 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic root replacement with cryopreserved aortic allografts can be performed with acceptable hospital mortality and long-term results. The durability of cryopreserved aortic allografts is good, and reoperation for structural valve failure is absent at 8 years.

Advantage of autograft and homograft valve replacement for complex aortic valve endocarditis

BACKGROUND

There are advantages to using homografts and autografts as aortic valve replacements, particularly in patients with infective endocarditis. To better define these advantages, we reviewed our 13-year experience with the surgical management of infective endocarditis involving the aortic valve and root.

METHODS

From 1986 through 1998, 81 adults with aortic valve endocarditis underwent valve replacement (AVR). The mean age of the 65 men and 16 women was 44 +/- 14 years. Sixty-three (78%) patients had active endocarditis at the time of operation. Non-native valve endocarditis was present in 29 (36%) patients, in 9 of whom the infection was a recurrence. Aortic valve replacements were performed with 46 homografts (homo-AVR), 25 autografts (Ross-AVR), and 10 prosthetic valves (prosth-AVR). Among Ross-AVR and homo-AVR patients, 11 required mitral valve replacement or repair (homo-Ross DVR). Follow-up was 90% complete within 2 years of the end of the study with a mean of 3.7 +/- 3.4 years.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 16% (13 of 81 patients). This was 12% (3 of 25 patients) for Ross-AVR, 17% (8 of 46 patients) for homo-AVR, and 20% (2 of 10 patients) for prosth-AVR. Overall late mortality was 10% (7 of 68 patients) with a valve-related late mortality of 7% (5 of 68 patients). Actuarial survival at 5 years was 88% +/- 9% in Ross-AVR, 69% +/- 11% in homo-AVR, and 29% +/- 22% in prosth-AVR (p = 0.03). Endocarditis recurred in 12.5% (1 of 8 patients) with prosth-AVR and 3% (2 of 60 patients) in homo-Ross AVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve replacement in the presence of native and prosthetic endocarditis remains a formidable challenge. Autografts and homografts are the preferred replacement aortic valves for these patients even if concomitant mitral valve replacement is required, and risk of valve-related death or recurrent endocarditis is low at medium-term follow-up.

Prosthetic valve endocarditis leading to valve replacement: a case study

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a pathologic condition of native or prosthetic heart valves or endocardium, which may result in valve destruction and congestive heart failure. It occurs more frequently in men than in women, and there is an increased trend in the elderly. The following conditions predispose patients to IE: congenital and rheumatic heart disease, calcification or stenosis of a valve, prosthetic valve surgery, a previous episode of endocarditis, poor dentition, parenteral drug abuse, and placement of intravascular lines or devices. Effective treatment frequently involves a combination of intense antibiotic therapy and surgical repair. Risk of death from IE is related to age over 60, diagnosis of staphylococcal infection, involvement of an aortic or prosthetic valve, and the presence of any of the following sequelae of endocarditis: congestive heart failure, embolic phenomenon, and neurologic deficit. Clinicians should suspect endocarditis in patients presenting with fever of unknown origin and who are at risk for endocarditis. Timely evaluation with transthoracic or transesophageal echocardiography may identify patients in the early stages of endocarditis and direct the patient to definitive therapy. Early treatment of native and prosthetic valve endocarditis may decrease its overall morbidity and mortality. This case study illustrates some of the challenges in effectively managing prosthetic valve endocarditis.

Stentless xenograft repair of excavating aortic root sepsis

BACKGROUND

A variety of surgical techniques are used to manage a disintegrated aortic annulus in patients with endocarditis and excavating aortic root sepsis. Homograft root replacement is preferable in this setting but suitable homografts are restricted in availability and excision of the aortic root carries the risk of postoperative bleeding. As an alternative we used a stentless porcine xenograft root (Medtronic Freestyle valve) to manage this problem.

METHODS

Three male patients with active endocarditis presented with aortic root abscess and partial or complete aorto-left ventricular discontinuity. One had prosthetic valve endocarditis, and the abscess cavity entered the right atrium in another. The porcine aortic root was successfully implanted using the modified subcoronary technique providing a repair within the aortic root with proximal and distal suture lines that excluded the disintegrating tissues from the blood stream. All patients were treated with intravenous antibiotics for 6 weeks postoperatively and none suffered recurrent infection (follow-up > 6 months).

CONCLUSION

The stentless porcine aortic root implanted within the human aorta provides an additional surgical option for excavating aortic root sepsis.