ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Andrea Colli
Riccardo Campodonico
Tiziano Gherli
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Colli, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gherli, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Colli, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gherli, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease

Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:87-91
© 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Original Articles: Cardiovascular

Early Switch From Vancomycin to Oral Linezolid for Treatment of Gram-Positive Heart Valve Endocarditis

Andrea Colli, MD*, Riccardo Campodonico, MD, Tiziano Gherli, MD

Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

Accepted for publication February 26, 2007.

* Address correspondence to Dr Colli, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hospital Clinic, C. Villaroel 170, Barcelona, 08036, Spain (Email: colli.andrea{at}libero.it).


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Background: Patients with complicated gram-positive endocarditis are usually treated with a combination of surgical procedure and long-term antibiotic therapy with intravenous vancomycin. However, oral linezolid offers the potential for an early switch from intravenous vancomycin to oral linezolid therapy.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study from February 2002 to August 2005 to determine the potential for early switch from intravenous vancomycin to oral linezolid in patients surgically treated for a left-sided active gram-positive endocarditis.

Results: Fourteen patients were identified; average age was 52 ± 16 years. There were 10 (85%) and 2 (15%) cases of native and prosthetic valve endocarditis, respectively. Patients were operated on 3 to 10 days after diagnosis. There were no cases of operative mortality. Mean follow-up was 20.8 ± 7.0 months. Two (14%) patients died of noncardiac causes during follow-up. The mean intensive care unit length of stay was 3.1 ± 2.3 days, and mean hospital length of stay was 10.5 ± 3.4 days. No cases of recurrent endocarditis or periprosthetic leakage were observed.

Conclusions: The combination of aggressive surgical treatment and the early switch from intravenous vancomycin to oral linezolid for treatment of active gram-positive heart valve endocarditis is safe and effective, and reduces infection relapses, vancomycin use, hospital length of stay, and economic costs.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
The prevalence of multidrug resistance in gram-positive bacteria is rapidly increasing. The worldwide management of infections attributable to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococci, and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae is increasingly difficult to manage with available therapies [1]. Staphylococcal intermediate [2, 3] and full resistance [4] to vancomycin have been reported, resulting in the prediction of future difficulties with vancomycin use. A comparison of outcomes between MRSA and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus infections suggests a higher patient mortality rate with the resistant strains (21% versus 8%) [5].

Current therapeutic options for treating MRSA infections include vancomycin, teicoplanin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, and linezolid. Vancomycin has become the drug of choice for MRSA because of its low cost and relatively low toxicity. However, reliance solely on vancomycin for control of MRSA is suboptimal because this antibiotic requires both intravenous (IV) administration and therapeutic drug monitoring. Additionally, vancomycin treatment promotes a selective pressure on the hospital’s microbial flora and does not have comparable bactericidal activity when compared with ß-lactam antimicrobials in the treatment of serious methicillin-sensitive S. aureus infections [6–8].

The inpatient cost of treating gram-positive severe infections with IV antibiotics is significant, and there is an increasing need to provide effective treatment for these infections in the outpatient setting. Linezolid, a synthetic antimicrobial, is the first member of the oxazolidinone class that inhibits bacterial protein synthesis by preventing formation of the 70S initiation complex [9, 10]. Linezolid has in vitro and in vivo activity against a broad range of antibiotic-susceptible and resistant gram-positive bacteria and it lacks cross-resistance with current antimicrobial therapies owing to its novel mechanism of action. The 100% oral bioavailability of linezolid may allow for early switch (ES) to oral therapy for gram-positive infections [11, 12]. Several studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of switching patients who are clinically stable to appropriate oral antibiotics to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS) for a variety of infections [13–19]. We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the potential opportunity of switching vancomycin IV therapy to oral linezolid in patients with active endocarditis and surgically treated with valve replacement.


   Material and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
Results
 Comment
 References
 
This study was conducted in agreement with the revised Declaration of Helsinki. The institutional review board approved the protocol, and all patients provided written informed consent. A retrospective analysis of the hospital database was performed during February 2002 through August 2005 after the introduction of linezolid at our institution. All patients presenting with active native or prosthetic valve left-sided endocarditis caused by resistant gram-positive bacteria who underwent surgical intervention for at least one valve replacement or repair were identified. The diagnosis of endocarditis at baseline was determined with the use of the modified Duke criteria [20]. The main indications for surgery were refractory cardiac failure caused by valvular insufficiency, persistent sepsis caused by a surgically removable focus, myocardial abscess, persistent life-threatening embolization, mobile vegetations greater than 10 mm, persistent pyrexia, and leukocytosis with negative blood cultures after 7 to 10 days of appropriate antibiotic therapy in accordance to the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for surgical therapy in active infective endocarditis [21]. Bacterial identification and antibiotic susceptibility were performed using standard techniques [22] following the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards recommendations [23].

Patients were considered to have failed therapy if they did not respond to the study drug protocol on the basis of ongoing signs and symptoms of infection. Patients experienced microbiologic failure if their infection persisted or relapsed as denoted by ongoing positive cultures, leading to discontinuation of the study drug or subsequent isolation of bacteria of the same strain after apparent clinical improvement.

All patients were treated before surgical intervention with IV vancomycin (target vancomycin blood level was between 10 and 15 mg/L) for at least 24 hours. After the intervention, patients were treated with continuous infusions of vancomycin to achieve a plateau blood concentration of 20 to 25 mg/L. The IV vancomycin protocol was as follows: loading dose was infused during the 1 hour after intensive care unit arrival after intervention. If the patient weighed less than 65 kg, 1 g of vancomycin was given; if the patient weighed more than 65 kg, 1.5 g was given. A continuous infusion of vancomycin (dilution, 10 mg/mL) at a rate dependent on the estimated creatinine clearance (Table 1) was administered. Daily serum samples were taken. The infusion rate was adjusted according to serum concentration (Table 2). If the patient fulfilled ES criteria (Table 3), oral linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours was initiated and continued for 3 weeks. Patients who had a single relapse in their clinical condition (eg, developed one episode of fever) but who otherwise fulfilled all other ES criteria remained eligible for continuation of linezolid therapy. Patients underwent clinical and microbiologic follow-up at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year after intervention. All patients underwent cardiology visits, a transthoracic echocardiography, and three blood cultures at each follow-up.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Vancomycin Infusion Rates
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Infusion Rate Adjustments According to Vancomycin Blood Concentration
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Criteria for Early Switch a
 

   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
Comment
 References
 
During the study period, 14 patients were surgically treated for left-sided active endocarditis. There were 10 male and 4 female patients, and the mean age was 52 ± 16 years. Ten patients were admitted with New York Heart Association class III criteria, and 4 patients satisfied New York Heart Association class IV criteria. Four patients were admitted directly to the intensive care unit, and of these, 3 were already receiving mechanical ventilation. Four patients presented with renal failure (creatinine >2 mg/dL).

All patients had at least one absolute indication for early surgical treatment. The most frequent indication was worsening heart failure (8 patients, 60%) and the inability to control the infection (6 patients, 40%). One patient experienced an embolic stroke 2 weeks before admission. Twelve patients (85%) presented with an active native valve endocarditis, and 2 patients (15%) presented with an active prosthetic valve endocarditis (1 early endocarditis and 1 late). Twelve patients (85%) presented preoperatively with positive blood cultures, and 2 patients (15%) had negative preoperative blood cultures. Eight patients (60%) presented with MRSA (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] > 2 mg/L), 4 patients (30%) presented with penicillin-resistant viridans group streptococci (1 Streptococci mutans, 3 Streptococci oralis, MIC > 0.5 mg/L). In the 2 patients (15%) with culture-negative endocarditis, pathogens were identified from the culture of the resected valves. In both cases, multidrug-resistant enterococci (resistant to penicillin MIC > 16 mg/L, resistant to gentamicin MIC > 500 mg/L, and vancomycin susceptible MIC < 4 mg/L) were identified.

All patients presented with at least one valve vegetation, and 1 patient presented with an intracardiac abscess. One patient (7%) was an IV drug user, and he presented with vegetations on the aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valves. Six patients (40%) presented with vegetations on the aortic valve, 6 patients (40%) on the mitral valve, and 1 (7%) on both the aortic and mitral valves. The 2 patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (1 mitral and 1 aortic) presented with prosthesis dehiscence.

Patients were operated on 3 to 10 days (mean, 5.1 ± 3.8 days) after confirmation of a diagnosis of endocarditis. All operations were performed using standard methods of cardiopulmonary bypass. Myocardial protection was achieved using antegrade warm blood cardioplegia in 8 patients (60%) and antegrade crystalloid cardioplegia (Custodiol; Koehler Chemie, Alsbach-Haenlein, Germany) in 6 patients (40%). Mechanical prosthetic valves (Bicarbon Sorin) were used to replace native valves in four (30%) patients (three mitral valve replacement and one double valve replacement). Bioprosthetic valves were used in 10 (70%) patients (4 Carpentier-Edwards, 4 Epic St. Jude Medical, 2 Björk-Shiley [Sheligh Inc, Millburn, NJ]); 4 aortic valve replacements, 5 mitral valve replacements, and 1 double-valve replacement). In one case of tricuspid valve endocarditis, vegetation removal and partial resection of the cusp, along with a De Vega annuloplasty, was performed.

The mean intensive care unit LOS was 3.1 ± 2.3 days. The total hospital LOS was 10.5 ± 3.4 days. Early switch to oral linezolid occurred after 5.3 ± 4.7 days from the surgical intervention Four (30%) patients were discharged directly home, and 10 (70%) patients were transferred to a rehabilitation center. Clinical follow-up was performed at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year after intervention. Follow-up was completed in 100% of the study patients. All the blood cultures performed at follow-up were negative.

No operative deaths within 30 days of the procedure occurred. There were 2 late deaths, resulting in an overall late mortality of 14.3%. Both patients died of noncardiac causes. One patient died of disseminated intravascular coagulation after gynecologic intervention 11 months after the mitral valve replacement with a mechanical valve. The second patient died of hemorrhagic stroke 18 months after the double-valve replacement with mechanical prostheses. Both patients were in the native valve endocarditis group.

There were no cases of recurrent endocarditis during the follow-up period (mean, 20.8 ± 7.0 months; range, 12 to 36 months). With regard to morbidity, there were no cases of periprosthetic leakage. One patient (7%) experienced early acute renal failure and underwent short-term dialysis with complete recovery. Three patients (21%) required mechanical ventilation for 48 to 96 hours postoperatively. All patients underwent safety laboratory evaluations every week for the first 4 weeks of therapy. There were no cases of drug-related complications.


   Comment
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
References
 
Surgical treatment of active infective endocarditis by valve replacement or repair still remains a challenge to physicians because it requires a surgically demanding operation and special emphasis on the eradication of the infectious focus to prevent early postoperative prosthesis colonization. This goal can be achieved by combining aggressive debridement of infective tissue and appropriate postoperative antibiotic treatment.

The prevalence of antibiotic resistance is increasing in many countries [24]. Particularly alarming is the emergence of gram-positive organisms resistant to glycopeptides, which were traditionally considered the ultimate defense against gram-positive infections. However, the narrow therapeutic index for vancomycin limits its use as an option to boost plasma concentrations by increasing dosage without incurring increased toxicity. In addition, vancomycin cannot be given orally because of poor systemic absorption. Teicoplanin also raises concerns about toxicity, requires monitoring of levels during parenteral administration, and has been associated with longer LOS than linezolid [25]. Other antibiotics such as aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, third-generation cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones have some activity against community-acquired MRSA strains [26] but are not sufficient for clinical use on all MRSA infections [27].

Despite good results published recently from several institutions [28–37], significant mortality and serious morbidity may be expected. Major improvements in myocardial protection and surgical reconstructive techniques, including aortic homograft implantation [38], have made surgical treatment an attractive and only option [39] in the majority of complicated cases.

Predictors of long-term survival in previous studies were reported to be cardiac failure, renal impairment, prosthetic valve endocarditis [34], preoperative New York Heart Association class IV, renal failure, mitral valve endocarditis [35], advanced age, staphylococcus infection, and anular abscess [36]. The differences in survival and risk factors in these reports are likely to reflect differences in the clinical and pathologic makeup of the patients involved, and comparisons should, therefore, be cautiously undertaken. During the last 3 years, in this limited group of patients, we obtained interesting early and long-term results. Our institution accepted a policy of early surgical treatment for active-phase endocarditis in patients who developed a complication or were resistant to antibiotic treatment in accordance with the ACC/AHA guidelines [21]. In our study, we had no operative deaths, and the only two cases of late death were not cardiac-related.

Operative findings (only one case of perianular abscess) also are illustrative of our policy to indicate surgical treatment as soon as it becomes evident that antibiotic treatment is inadequate or as soon as we encounter complications. Moreover, the rather small number of serious postoperative complications and the absence of recurrence of endocarditis are encouraging and suggest that combining early surgical treatment with the ES antibiotic protocol (IV vancomycin to oral linezolid) in patients with resistant gram-positive endocarditis can be considered effective and safe. The ES to oral linezolid has already been demonstrated to effectively reduce vancomycin use, hospital LOS, and economic costs in MRSA infections with exceptions for endocarditis and osteomyelitis [18, 19].

All microorganisms identified in our series were vancomycin and linezolid susceptible. We believe that the application of linezolid ES in patients surgically treated for heart valve endocarditis attributable to resistant gram-positive endocarditis could provide several advantages: avoidance of a prolonged hospital confinement and subsequent morbidity, potential economic savings by reducing the total LOS, improvements in patient satisfaction, removal of IV catheters, and reduction of the risk of acquiring new nosocomial infections. The earlier discharge periods associated with the use of a linezolid ES protocol would also diminish the reservoir of resistant gram-positive infected patients from the hospital population. This outcome is desirable for several reasons. First, the number of MRSA transmission opportunities for noncolonized patients or health-care professionals is reduced [40]. Second, the concomitant decline in vancomycin use would decrease selective pressure for resistant organisms such as vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Third, fewer hospitalized resistant gram-positive infected patients would free otherwise-committed human and financial resources for extreme infection control measures such as surveillance, contact isolation, personnel education, and improved antimicrobial utilization programs [22].

The potential economic impact of ES protocol to oral linezolid therapy is shown by the hospital bed costs and drug acquisition costs presented in Table 4. Hospital costs were obtained from the Administration and Financial Department of the University Hospital of Parma and are based on the Regional Public Health System Reimbursement criteria.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Cost Assumptions for the University Hospital of Parma Facility During Year 2005
 
In our series, the combination of surgical treatment of involved heart valves and application of the linezolid ES protocol resulted in eradication of pathogens in all patients. We also have to consider the fact that no patient presented at the time of ES with a pathogen resistant to linezolid. No patient developed drug resistance while receiving linezolid therapy. Linezolid was well tolerated, and we failed to observe any cases of clinical or laboratory adverse events related to drug therapy.

Our study showed that the combination of an aggressive surgical intervention and a linezolid ES protocol for resistant gram-positive heart valve endocarditis is an effective treatment and offers the potential for decreased vancomycin utilization, decreased LOS, and health-care cost savings. The absence of hospital mortality, cardiac long-term mortality, recurrence of infection, and need for reintervention was encouraging. The interesting results we observed are limited to this select group of patients. Owing to the limitations of our study (small sample size, retrospective analysis, single institution design), validation of these results will require further clinical investigations with multicenter randomized trials.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 

  1. Michel M, Gutmann L. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci: therapeutic realities and possibilities Lancet 1997;349:1901-1906.[Medline]
  2. Smith TL, Pearson ML, Wilcox KR, et al. Emergence of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus N Engl J Med 1999;340:493-501.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Srinivasan A, Dick JD, Perl TM. Vancomycin resistance in staphylococci Clin Microbiol Rev 2002;15:430-438.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Staphylococcus aureus resistance to vancomycin—United States, 2002 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002;51:565.[Medline]
  5. Rubin RJ, Harrington CA, Poon A, Dietrich K, Greene JA, Moiduddin A. The economic impact of Staphylococcus aureus infection in New York City hospitals Emerging Infect Dis 1999;5:9-17.[Medline]
  6. Herwaldt LA. Control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the hospital setting Am J Med 1999;106(Suppl):11S-18S.[Medline]
  7. Gonzalez C, Rubio M, Romero-Vivas J, Gonzalez M, Picazo JJ. Bacteremic pneumonia due to Staphylococcus aureus: a comparison of disease caused by methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible organisms Clin Infect Dis 1999;29:1171-1177.[Medline]
  8. Mortara LA, Bayer AS. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditisNew diagnostic and therapeutic concepts. Infect Dis Clinic N Am 1993;7:53-68.
  9. Swaney SM, Aoki H, Ganoza MC, Shinabarger DL. The oxazolidinone linezolid inhibits initiation of protein synthesis in bacteria Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998;42:3251-3255.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Zurenko GE, Gibson JK, Shinabarger PA, Aristoff DL, Ford CW, Tarpley WG. Oxazolidinones: a new class of antibacterials Curr Opin Pharmacol 2001;1:470-476.[Medline]
  11. Fung HB, Kirschenbaum HL, Ojofeitimi BO. Linezolid: an oxazolidinone antimicrobial agent Clin Therap 2001;23:356-391.[Medline]
  12. Clemett D, Markham A. Linezolid Drugs 2000;59:815-827.[Medline]
  13. Sevinc F, Prins JM, Koopmans RP, et al. Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics: guidelines and implementation in a large teaching hospital J Antimicrob Chemother 1999;43:601-606.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Eron LJ, Passos S. Early discharge of infected patients through appropriate antibiotic use Arch Intern Med 2001;161:61-65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Przybylski KG, Rybak MJ, Martin PR, et al. A pharmacist-initiated program of intravenous to oral antibiotic conversion Pharmacotherapy 1997;17:271-276.[Medline]
  16. Laing RB, Mackenzie AR, Shaw H, Gould IM, Douglas JG. The effect of intravenous-to-oral switch guidelines on the use of parenteral antimicrobials in medical wards J Antimicrob Chemother 1998;42:107-111.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Ahkee S, Smith S, Newman D, Ritter W, Burke J, Ramirez JA. Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics in hospitalized patients with infections: a 6-month prospective study Pharmacotherapy 1997;17:569-575.[Medline]
  18. Li Z, Willke RJ, Pinto LA, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay for patients with known or suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus species infections treated with linezolid or vancomycin: a randomized, multicenter trial Pharmacotherapy 2001;21:263-274.[Medline]
  19. Parodi S, Rhew DC, Goetz Bidwell M. Early switch and early discharge opportunities in intravenous vancomycin treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant staphylococcal species infections J Managed Care Pharm 2003;9:317-326.
  20. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:633-638.[Medline]
  21. Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon Jr AC, et al. Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summaryA report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease). Circulation 1998;98:1949-1984.[Free Full Text]
  22. Kloos WE, Banerman TL. Staphylococcus and Micrococcus In: Murray PR, Baron EJ, Pfaller MA, Tenover FC, Yolken RH, editors. Manual of clinical microbiology. 7th ed.. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press; 1999. pp. 264-282.
  23. NCCLS Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Wayne, PA: NCCLS; 2000National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) document M7-A5.
  24. European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (EARSS). Annual Report 2002. European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (EARSS). Available at: http://www.earss.rivm.nl (accessed Aug 20, 2006).
  25. Lopez H, Li JZ, Balan DA, et al. Hospital resource use and cost of treatment with linezolid versus teicoplanin for treatment of serious gram-positive bacterial infections among hospitalized patients from South America and Mexico: results from a multicenter trial Clin Ther 2003;25:1846-1871.[Medline]
  26. Naimi TS, LeDell KH, Como-Sabetti K, et al. Comparison of community- and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection JAMA 2003;290:2976-2984.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Schmitz FJ, et al. SENTRY Participants Group Survey of infections due to Staphylococcus species: frequency of occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates collected in the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, and the Western Pacific region for the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997–1999 Clin Infect Dis 2001;32(Suppl 2):S114-S132.[Medline]
  28. David TE, Komeda M, Brofman PR. Surgical treatment of aortic root abscess Circulation 1989;80:1269-1274.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. d’Udekern Y, David TE, Feindel CM, Armstrong S, Sun Z. Long-term results of operations for paravalvular abscess Ann Thorac Surg 1996;62:48-62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Dodge A, Hurni M, Ruchat P, et al. Surgery in native valve endocarditis: indications, results and risk factors Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1995;9:330-334.[Abstract]
  31. Mullany CJ, Chua YL, Schaff HV, et al. Early and late survival after surgical treatment of culture-positive active endocarditis Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70:517-525.[Abstract]
  32. Jault F, Gandjbakhch I, Rama A, et al. Active native valve endocarditis: determinants of operative death and late mortality Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63:1737-1741.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Alexiou C, Langley SM, Stafford H, Lowes JA, Livesey S, AMonro JL. Surgery for active culture-positive endocarditis: determinants of early and late outcome Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:1448-1454.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Renzulli A, Carozza A, Marra C, et al. Are blood and valve cultures predictive for long-term outcome following surgery for infective endocarditis? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;17:228-233.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Moon MR, Miller DC, Moore KA, et al. Treatment of endocarditis with valve replacement: the question of tissue versus mechanical prosthesis Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:1164-1171.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Delay D, Pellerin M, Carrier M, et al. Immediate and long-term results of valve replacement for native and prosthetic valve endocarditis Ann Thorac Surg 2000;70:1219-1223.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Aagaard J, Andersen PV. Acute endocarditis treated with radical debridement and implantation of mechanical or stented bioprosthetic devices Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:100-102.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Langley SM, Livesey SA, Tsang VT, et al. Long-term results of valve replacement using antibiotic-sterilized homografts in the aortic position Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1996;10:1097-1106.[Abstract]
  39. Dearani JA, Orszulak TA, Schaff HV, Daly RC, Anderson BJ, Danielson GK. Results of allograft aortic valve replacement for complex endocarditis J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113:285-291.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Rice LB. A silver bullet for colonization and infection with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus still eludes us Clin Infect Dis 1999;28:1067-1070.[Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Andrea Colli
Riccardo Campodonico
Tiziano Gherli
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Colli, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gherli, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Colli, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gherli, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS