Role of mitral valve repair in active infective endocarditis: long term results

The Surgical Outcome of Infective Endocarditis in South Africa over 10 Years: A Retrospective Review

Objectives: There is a paucity of data on the outcome of left-sided cardiac valve surgery for infective endocarditis in South Africa. It is hypothesized that outcomes may be poorer compared to international standards due to differences in disease burden, timing of surgery, organism prevalence, and co-morbidities. Method: This is a retrospective study of 160 patients with left heart valve endocarditis who underwent cardiac surgery from January 2010 to December 2019. Demographic, operative, and admission-related parameters were assessed to determine their association with all-cause mortality during the early post-operative (<30 days) and late post-operative (>30 days) periods. Results: Early post-operative mortality (<30 days) was 8.8% and late post-operative mortality (>30 days) was 13.1%. Late survival showed 77.5% of the patients were alive with a mean follow-up period of 41 months. Increased age (p = 0.04), critical illness (p < 0.001), and higher urgency of intervention (p < 0.001) were associated with higher early post-operative mortality. Peri-operative organ failure, including cardiac (p = 0.025), renal (p = 0.016), and respiratory failure (p < 0.001), contributed significantly to both early and late mortality. Pre-operative antibiotics for fewer days (p = 0.024), ongoing sepsis (p = 0.022), and para-valvular extension (p = 0.046) were associated with higher early mortality. Conclusions: Infective endocarditis is a common indication for cardiac valve surgery in South Africa. Goal-directed medical management and clinical optimization prior to surgery were crucial to achieving better outcomes. Salvage procedures and critical illness with organ failure prior to surgery were associated with poorer outcomes. Despite unique challenges, cardiac surgery for infective endocarditis at Tygerberg Hospital compares favorably to international standards.

Longitudinal Outcomes Following Mitral Valve Repair for Infective Endocarditis

Mitral valve repair is the ideal approach in managing mitral valve infective endocarditis for patients requiring surgery. However, viable repair is influenced by the extent of valve destruction and there can be technical challenges in reconstruction following debridement. Overall, data describing long-term outcomes following mitral repair of infective endocarditis are scarce. We, therefore, assessed the late outcomes of 101 consecutive patients who underwent mitral valve repair for IE at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute from 2001 to 2021. The 5- and 10-year survival rate was 80.8 ± 4.7% and 61.2 ± 9.2%, respectively. Among these 101 patients, 7 ultimately required mitral valve reoperation at a median of 5 years after their initial operation. These patients were of a mean age of 35.9 ± 7.3 years (range 22-44 years) at the time of their initial operation. The 5- and 10-year freedom from mitral valve reoperation was 93.6 ± 3.4% and 87.7 ± 5.2%, respectively. Overall, mitral valve repair can be an effective method for treating infective endocarditis with a favourable freedom from reoperation and mortality over the long term.

Limited Versus Radical Resection in Mitral Valve Infective Endocarditis Surgery

Background: Mitral valve repair is preferred in patients undergoing surgical treatment for infective endocarditis (IE) of the native mitral valve, however, radical resection of infected tissue and patch-plasty might potentially lead to low or non-durable repair. We aimed to compare a limited-resection and non-patch technique with the classic radical-resection technique. Methods: Eligible candidates were patients with definitive IE of the native mitral valve undergoing surgery between January 2013 and December 2018. Patients were classified according to the surgical strategy into two groups: limited- versus radical-resection strategy. Propensity score matching was used. Endpoints were repair rate, all-cause mortality (30-day and 2-year), re-endocarditis and reoperation at q-year follow-up. Results: After propensity score matching, 90 patients were included. Follow-up was 100% complete. Mitral valve repair rate was 84% in the limited-resection versus 18% in the radical-resection strategy, p < 0.001. The 30-day and 2-year mortality were 20% versus 13% (p = 0.396) and 33% versus 27% (p = 0.490) in the limited-resection versus radical-resection strategy, respectively. The incidence of re-endocarditis during the 2-year follow-up was 4% in the limited-resection strategy versus 9% in the radical-resection strategy, p = 0.677. Three patients in the limited-resection strategy underwent reoperation of the mitral valve, while there were none in the radical-resection strategy (p = 0.242). Conclusions: Although mortality in patients with IE of the native mitral valve remains high, the limited-resection and non-patch surgical strategy is associated with a significantly higher repair rates with comparable 30-day and mid-term mortality, risk of re-endocarditis and re-operation compared to the radical-resection strategy.

Feasibility and outcome of mitral valve repair in patients with infective endocarditis

Background

Valve repair is the treatment of choice for native mitral valve regurgitation. The feasibility of repair when the defect is caused by acute infective endocarditis (IE) is debated. This study aims to compare the outcome of repair and replacement procedures, to report the rate of repair in a single surgical center, and to review the literature on this topic.

Results

We retrospectively analyzed 108 patients with native mitral IE, potentially eligible for surgical repair. Of these 108, 90 (83%) underwent surgery, and 18 were treated conservatively. Among the 90 surgical patients, 57 (63%) underwent valve replacement and 33 valve repair (37%). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. The two primary endpoints were mortality and freedom from recurrent endocarditis. Secondary endpoints were the post-operative incidence of major adverse events (hospitalization for any cause, pacemaker implantation, new onset of atrial fibrillation, sternal dehiscence), left ventricular systolic function (LVSF), and valvular function at 1-year echocardiographic follow-up. All-cause mortality was lower for valve repair, although not significantly (p = 0.86), as well as nonfatal adverse events (p = 0.92) and relapse rate (p = 0.20) at 3 years. We did not find differences between the two groups at echocardiographic follow-up, neither for left ventricular systolic function (p = 0.22), nor for valvular continence (p = 0.28).

Conclusions

In our experience, the mid-term outcome of repair in IE is comparable to valve replacement and should be considered whenever possible, as in degenerative valve disease. The review of the literature supports this strategy.

Recurrent infective endocarditis versus first-time infective endocarditis after heart valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

Infective endocarditis (IE) may require heart valve surgery. It is well known that heart valve surgery itself and previous IE predispose to IE. However, data are sparse on whether the risk of IE is different among patients undergoing valve surgery due to IE and other causes (i.e. recurrent vs. first-time IE).

METHODS

Using Danish nationwide registries, patients undergoing left-sided heart valve surgery in the course of an IE hospitalization (1996-2017) were identified and matched with controls undergoing left-sided heart valve surgery due to another cause than IE in a 1:1 ratio. Patients were stratified according to type of surgical valve intervention and affected valve. The comparative risk of recurrent vs. first-time IE was assessed by cumulative incidence curves and multivariable Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 971 patients with a first-time admission for IE requiring heart valve surgery matched with 971 controls undergoing heart valve surgery due to other causes than IE. The risk of recurrent IE was significantly higher than the risk of first-time IE following heart valve surgery (5.5% and 3.0% by 10 years, hazard ratio (HR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.70). The risk of IE recurrence was not significantly different comparing valve replacement and valve repair (5.5% and 5.3%, respectively, HR 1.60, 95% CI 0.71-3.60). Yet, the risk of IE recurrence was significantly higher among patients with biological versus mechanical prostheses (6.3% and 4.6%, respectively, HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02-3.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Following heart valve surgery, the risk of recurrent IE was significantly higher than the risk of first-time IE.

Contemporary trends and outcomes of mitral valve surgery for infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Contemporary data on mitral valve (MV) surgery in patients with infective endocarditis (IE) are limited.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample was queried to identify patients with IE who underwent MV surgery between 2003 and 2016. We assessed (a) temporal trends in the incidence of MV surgery for IE, (b) morbidity, mortality, and cost of MV repair vs replacement, and (c) predictors of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The proportion of MV operations involving patients with IE increased from 5.4% in 2003 to 7.3%, and the proportion of MV repair among those undergoing surgery for IE increased from 15.2% to 25.0% (P_trend  < .001). In-hospital mortality was higher in the replacement group (11.3% vs 8.1%; P < .001), and this excess mortality persisted after propensity score matching (11.2% vs 8.1%; P < .001), and in sensitivity analyses excluding concomitant surgery (unadjusted 11.3% vs 4.8%; adjusted 8.5% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stratifying patients by the time of operation (within 7 days, 11.3% vs 6.8%; P < .001 and >7 days, 11.9% vs 9.1%; P = .012). In the propensity-matched cohorts, shock and need for tracheostomy were more frequent in the replacement group, but rates of stroke, pacemaker implantation, new dialysis, and blood transfusion were similar. Mitral valve repair was, however, associated with shorter hospitalizations, more home discharges, and less cost. In a multivariate regression analysis, age above 70 and chronic dialysis were the strongest predictors of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Mitral valve repair in IE patients is associated with lower in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and cost compared with MV replacement.

[Treatment of infectious endocarditis]

Antibiotic treatment of infective endocarditis is part of a multidisciplinary patient management that should be conducted within an "Endocarditis team". Initial antibiotic treatment of infective endocarditis should be parenteral and comply with current international guidelines. A switch to an oral antibiotic regimen may be considered after 2weeks of successful parenteral antibiotic treatment. Aminoglycosides should no longer be used for the initial treatment of native valve Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Valve surgery is required in almost half of the patients.

Multi-Modality Imaging in the Evaluation and Treatment of Mitral Regurgitation

OPINION STATEMENT

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is frequent and associated with increased mortality and morbidity when severe. It may be caused by intrinsic valvular disease (primary MR) or ventricular deformation (secondary MR). Imaging has a critical role to document the severity, mechanism, and impact of MR on heart function as selected patients with MR may benefit from surgery whereas other will not. In patients planned for a surgical intervention, imaging is also important to select candidates for mitral valve (MV) repair over replacement and to predict surgical success. Although standard transthoracic echocardiography is the first-line modality to evaluate MR, newer imaging modalities like three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography, stress echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and computed tomography (CT) are emerging and complementary tools for MR assessment. While some of these modalities can provide insight into MR severity, others will help to determine its mechanism. Understanding the advantages and limitations of each imaging modality is important to appreciate their respective role for MR assessment and help to resolve eventual discrepancies between different diagnostic methods. With the increasing use of transcatheter mitral procedures (repair or replacement) for high-surgical-risk patients, multimodality imaging has now become even more important to determine eligibility, preinterventional planning, and periprocedural guidance.