Homograft versus Conventional Prosthesis for Surgical Management of Aortic Valve Infective Endocarditis

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bobby Yanagawa ◽  
Amine Mazine ◽  
Derrick Y. Tam ◽  
Peter Jüni ◽  
Deepak L. Bhatt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Surgical Management ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis ◽  
Prosthetic Valves ◽  
Mechanical Valves ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Mortality Incidence ◽  
Similar Survival

Objective Surgical management of aortic valve infective endocarditis (IE) with cryopreserved homograft has been associated with lower risk of recurrent IE, but there is equipoise with regard to the optimal prosthesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare outcomes between homograft and conventional prosthesis for aortic valve IE. Methods We searched MEDLINE database to September 2017 for studies comparing homograft versus conventional prosthesis. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, recurrent IE, and reoperation. Results There were 18 included comparative observational studies with 2232 patients (median follow up = 5 [interquartile range: 2–7] years, 30% prosthetic valve endocarditis); four studies were adjusted for baseline differences. There were no differences in perioperative mortality or stroke despite a greater proportion of staphylococcal endocarditis, abscess, and root replacements but less multivalve involvement in the homograft group. Long-term outcomes of all-cause mortality [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.81–1.31, P = 0.83, for unmatched, and IRR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.36–1.84, P = 0.63, for matched studies], recurrent endocarditis (IRR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.53–1.93, P = 0.96, for unmatched, and IRR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.49–2.19, P = 0.92, for matched studies), and reoperation (IRR = 1.60, 95% CI = 0.80–3.21, P = 0.18, for unmatched, and IRR = 3.17, 95% CI = 0.52–19.44, P = 0.21, for matched studies) were not different comparing homograft versus conventional prosthesis. There was a significantly increased need for reoperation with homograft versus mechanical prosthetic valves, but this comparison was based on limited data. Conclusions Homografts and conventional prostheses offer similar survival and freedom from recurrent endocarditis and reoperation for aortic valve IE. Homografts may be associated with greater risk of reoperation compared with mechanical valves.

scholarly journals Infective Endocarditis – An Observational Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-94
Author(s):  
Brindusa Tilea ◽  
Simona Teches ◽  
S. Voidazan ◽  
Klara Brinzaniuc ◽  
I. Tilea
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis ◽  
Etiologic Agent ◽  
Clinical Aspects ◽  
Coagulase Negative Staphylococci ◽  
Streptococcus Gallolyticus ◽  
Prosthetic Valves

Abstract Introduction: Despite all the progresses made in the management of infectious and cardiovascular diseases, the incidence of infective endocarditis remains high. Aim: the assessment of etiological, clinical, therapeutic aspects in patients with endocarditis. Material and method: A retrospective observational study in 40 patients with infective endocarditis was conducted, over a period of 5 years. Parameters related to demographic, risk factors, clinical aspects, nature and location of valve damage, bacteriological and therapeutic parameters were assessed. Echocardiography was used to confirm the location of the endocarditis; the aetiology of the disease was identified through the isolation of bacteria from blood cultures by using an automatic BacT/ALERT® system. Results: Patients’ age ranged between 31 - 84 years old. The disease was present predominantly in male patients (67.5%). 70% of the patients were positively diagnosed with endocarditis and 30% with possible endocarditis; the most frequent localization was the native valves in 75% of the cases, compared to the localization in the prosthetic valves, 25%; the aortic valve was involved in 60% of the cases, mitral valve in 40% of the patients. Aetiology of endocarditis was confirmed in 55% of cases as follows: Enterococcus fecalis, speciae, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus gallolyticus, coagulase-positive methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, coagulasepositive methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus lungdunensis, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Streptococcus gordonii, viridans, agalactiae. Antibiotic treatment was administered according to the antibiogram in 55% of the cases. Conclusions: Staphylococcus speciae was the most frequent etiologic agent both in case of native and prosthetic valve endocarditis, with aortic valve predominance.

Epidemiology of infective endocarditis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: systemic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 790-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narut Prasitlumkum ◽  
Wasawat Vutthikraivit ◽  
Sittinun Thangjui ◽  
Thiratest Leesutipornchai ◽  
Jakrin Kewcharoen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

scholarly journals Infective Endocarditis Due to Corynebacterium Species: Clinical Features and Antibiotic Resistance

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Bläckberg ◽  
Linn Falk ◽  
Karl Oldberg ◽  
Lars Olaison ◽  
Magnus Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis ◽  
Penicillin G ◽  
Severe Condition ◽  
Ionization Time ◽  
Prosthetic Valves ◽  
Corynebacterium Species ◽  
Corynebacterium Striatum

Abstract Background Corynebacterium species are often dismissed as contaminants in blood cultures, but they can also cause infective endocarditis (IE), which is a severe condition. Antibiotic resistance of corynebacteria is increasing making treatment challenging. Reports on IE caused by Corynebacterium species are scarce and more knowledge is needed. Methods Cases of IE caused by Corynebacterium species were identified through the Swedish Registry of Infective Endocarditis. Isolates were collected for species redetermination by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight and for antibiotic susceptibility testing using Etests. Results Thirty episodes of IE due to Corynebacterium species were identified between 2008 and 2017. The median age of patients was 71 years (interquartile range, 60–76) and 77% were male. Corynebacterium striatum (n = 11) was the most common IE causing pathogen followed by Corynebacterium jeikeium (n = 5). Surgery was performed in 50% and in-hospital mortality rate was 13%. Patients with IE caused by Corynebacterium species were significantly more likely to have prosthetic valve endocarditis (70%), compared with patients with IE due to Staphylococcus aureus or non-beta-hemolytic streptococci (14% and 26%, respectively) (P < .0001). Vancomycin was active towards all Corynebacterium isolates, whereas resistance towards penicillin G was common. Conclusions Corynebacterium species cause IE, where prosthetic valves are mainly affected and surgery is often performed. Corynebacterium striatum is an important causative agent of IE within the genus. Antibiotic resistance of corynebacteria is relatively common but resistance towards vancomycin could not be detected in vitro.

scholarly journals Infective endocarditis caused by HACEK group bacteria—a registry-based comparative study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Bläckberg ◽  
Christian Morenius ◽  
Lars Olaison ◽  
Andreas Berge ◽  
Magnus Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Haemophilus Influenzae ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Prosthetic Valve ◽  
Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis ◽  
Common Cause ◽  
Prosthetic Valves

AbstractInfective endocarditis (IE) caused by bacteria within Haemophilus (excluding Haemophilus influenzae), Aggregatibacter, Cardiobacterium, Eikenella and Kingella (HACEK) is rare. This study aimed to describe clinical features of IE caused by HACEK genera in comparison with IE due to other pathogens. Cases of IE due to HACEK were identified through the Swedish Registry of Infective Endocarditis (SRIE). Clinical characteristics of IE cases caused by HACEK were compared with cases of IE due to other pathogens reported to the same registry. Ninety-six patients with IE caused by HACEK were identified, and this corresponds to 1.8% of all IE cases. Eighty-three cases were definite endocarditis, and the mortality rate was 2%. The median age was 63 years, which was lower compared to patients with IE caused by other pathogens (66, 70 and 73 years respectively, p ≤ 0.01). Patients with IE caused by Haemophilus were younger compared to patients with IE due to Aggregatibacter (47 vs 67 years, p ≤ 0.001). Patients with IE due to HACEK exhibited longer duration from onset of symptoms to hospitalization and had more prosthetic valve endocarditis compared to patients with IE due to Staphylococcus aureus (10 vs 2 days, p ≤ 0.001, and 35 vs 14%, p ≤ 0.001). This is, to date, the largest study on IE due to HACEK. Aggregatibacter was the most common cause of IE within the group. The condition has a subacute onset and often strikes in patients with prosthetic valves, and the mortality rate is relatively low.

scholarly journals Duration of Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiki Kuno ◽  
Yujiro Yokoyama ◽  
Alexandros Briasoulis ◽  
Makoto Mori ◽  
Masao Iwagami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Life Threatening

Background Although current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 3 to 6 months following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there are no studies directly comparing outcomes of different durations of DAPT following TAVR. Methods and Results PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database were searched through November 2020 to identify clinical studies that investigated single antiplatelet therapy versus DAPT use following TAVR. Studies using oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet therapy concomitantly were excluded. The DAPT group was subdivided by the duration of DAPT. We extracted the risk ratios (RRs) of major or life‐threatening bleeding, stroke, and all‐cause mortality. Four randomized controlled trials, 2 propensity‐score matched studies, and 1 observational study were identified, yielding a total of 2498 patients who underwent TAVR assigned to the single antiplatelet therapy group (n=1249), 3‐month DAPT group (n=485), or 6‐month DAPT group (n=764). Pooled analyses demonstrated that when compared with the single antiplatelet therapy group, the rates of major or life‐threatening bleeding were significantly higher in the 3‐ and 6‐month DAPT groups (RR [95% CI]=2.13 [1.33–3.40], P =0.016; RR [95% CI]=2.54 [1.49–4.33], P =0.007, respectively) with no difference between the 3‐month DAPT versus 6‐month DAPT groups. The rates of stroke and all‐cause mortality were similar among the 3 groups. Conclusions In this network meta‐analysis of antiplatelet therapy following TAVR, single antiplatelet therapy with aspirin had lower bleeding without increasing stroke or death when compared with either 3‐ or 6‐month DAPT.

scholarly journals 18F-FDG PET/CT in Infective Endocarditis: Indications and Approaches for Standardization

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
D. ten Hove ◽  
R.H.J.A. Slart ◽  
B. Sinha ◽  
A.W.J.M. Glaudemans ◽  
R.P.J. Budde
Keyword(s):  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis ◽  
Cardiac Device ◽  
Native Valve ◽  
Prosthetic Valves ◽  
Cardiac Devices ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct ◽  
Disseminated Disease

Abstract Purpose of Review Additional imaging modalities, such as FDG-PET/CT, have been included into the workup for patients with suspected infective endocarditis, according to major international guidelines published in 2015. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of FDG-PET/CT indications and standardized approaches in the setting of suspected infective endocarditis. Recent Findings There are two main indications for performing FDG-PET/CT in patients with suspected infective endocarditis: (i) detecting intracardiac infections and (ii) detection of (clinically silent) disseminated infectious disease. The diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT for intracardiac lesions depends on the presence of native valves, prosthetic valves, or implanted cardiac devices, with a sensitivity that is poor for native valve endocarditis and cardiac device-related lead infections, but much better for prosthetic valve endocarditis and cardiac device-related pocket infections. Specificity is high for all these indications. The detection of disseminated disease may also help establish the diagnosis and/or impact patient management. Summary Based on current evidence, FDG-PET/CT should be considered for detection of disseminated disease in suspected endocarditis. Absence of intracardiac lesions on FDG-PET/CT cannot rule out native valve endocarditis, but positive findings strongly support the diagnosis. For prosthetic valve endocarditis, standard use of FDG-PET/CT is recommended because of its high sensitivity and specificity. For implanted cardiac devices, FDG-PET/CT is also recommended, but should be evaluated with careful attention to clinical context, because its sensitivity is high for pocket infections, but low for lead infections. In patients with prosthetic valves with or without additional aortic prosthesis, combination with CTA should be considered. Optimal timing of FDG-PET/CT is important, both during clinical workup and technically (i.e., post tracer injection). In addition, procedural standardization is key and encompasses patient preparation, scan acquisition, reconstruction, subsequent analysis, and clinical interpretation. The recommendations discussed here will hopefully contribute to improved standardization and enhanced performance of FDG-PET/CT in the clinical management of patients with suspected infective endocarditis.

Abstract 12786: Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Concomitant Indications for Long-term Oral Anticoagulation: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gonçalo Costa ◽  
Lino Gonçalves ◽  
rogerio teixeira
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Oral Anticoagulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antithrombotic Treatment ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Cerebrovascular Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Aortic Valve Implantation ◽  
Valve Implantation

Background: Ischemic and bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain prevalent and affect survival. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients undergoing TAVI and constitutes an indication for long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC). Current guidelines on antithrombotic treatment in patients who have an indication for OAC after TAVI are based on expert opinion and suggest the use of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) either alone or in combination with aspirin or clopidogrel. Purpose: To compare OAC (VKA or direct oral anticoagulant) versus OAC in combination with single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), either aspirin or clopidogrel, as antithrombotic treatment following TAVI in patients with an indication for long-term OAC or the prevention of cerebrovascular events, bleeding events and all-cause mortality. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, in April 2020, for both interventional or observational studies comparing OAC with OAC plus SAPT. Random-effects meta-analysis for OAC and OAC combined with SAPT were performed. Results: Four studies were included (three registry-based and one randomized clinical trial) providing a total of 1218 patients, and 69 pooled cerebrovascular events. There was no statistical difference between OAC and OAC plus SAPT for the prevention of cerebrovascular events after TAVI (pooled OR 0.89 [0.51, 1.55], P=0.69, I 2 = 0%) - Figure. Similarly, there was a similar rate of all-cause mortality (pooled OR 0.98 [0.72, 1.35], P=0.91, I 2 = 0%). Furthermore, the rate of major bleeding or life-threatening events was significantly lower for OAC compared with the combined therapy (pooled OR 0.45 [0.29, 0.70], P<0.01, I 2 = 5%). Conclusions: Our pooled data suggests that for patients with indication for long-term oral anticoagulation after TAVI, the routine use of double anti-thrombotic therapy (SAPT+OAC) compared to the use of OAC, conferred an increased risk of bleeding

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of early aortic valve replacement versus watchful waiting in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a 2020 boost of evidence

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Costa ◽  
B Oliveiros ◽  
L Goncalves ◽  
R Teixeira
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Watchful Waiting ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Meta Regression

Abstract Background Current guidelines recommend aortic-valve replacement (AVR) as the only effective therapy for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) patients. Nevertheless, management and timing of intervention in asymptomatic AS remains a controversial topic, with sparse evidence to support the recommendations (level C). Purpose To assess an early-AVR strategy in asymptomatic severe AS, comparing it with a watchful waiting (WW) strategy Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, in February 2020, for both interventional or observational studies comparing early-AVR with WW in the treatment of asymptomatic severe AS. Random-effects meta-analysis for early-AVR and WW were performed. Meta-regression was used to assess the influence of study characteristics on the outcome. Results Eight studies were included (seven registry-based or unrandomized studies and one randomized clinical trial) providing a total of 3985 patients, and 1232 pooled all-cause deaths (172 in early-AVR and 1060 in watchful waiting). Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower all-cause mortality for the early-AVR compared with WW group (pooled OR 0.24 [0.17, 0.32], P&lt;0.01) although with a moderate amount of heterogeneity between studies in the magnitude of effect (I2=57%, P=0.02). The early-AVR patients also displayed a lower cardiovascular mortality (pooled OR 0.27 [0.15, 0.48], P&lt;0.01) plus a lower heart failure hospitalization rate (pooled OR 0.27 [0.06, 0.65], P&lt;0.007). No difference in clinical thromboembolic event rate (stroke or myocardial infarction) was noted. The meta-regression for all cause mortality based on possible confounders such as time of follow-up, age, gender, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, and mean peak aortic jet velocity showed that effect sizes reported by the individual studies seem to be independent from the covariates considered (P&gt;0.05). Conclusions Our 2020 pooled data reinforces the previous evidence suggesting the benefit of early-AVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS. Early AVR vs WW, All-cause death Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document