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


     


Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:1935-1942. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.06.050
© 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Discussion
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):
Thierry Mesana
Frederic Collart
Dominique Metras
Alberto Riberi
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Avierinos, J.-F.
Right arrow Articles by Riberi, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Avierinos, J.-F.
Right arrow Articles by Riberi, A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease
Right arrowRelated Article


Original Articles: Cardiovascular

Surgical Treatment of Active Aortic Endocarditis: Homografts Are Not the Cornerstone of Outcome

Jean-François Avierinos, MDa, Franck Thuny, MDa, Virginie Chalvignac, MDa, Roch Giorgi, MD, PhDc, Laurence Tafanelli, MDa, Jean-Paul Casalta, MDd, Didier Raoult, MDd, Thierry Mesana, MDb, Frederic Collart, MDb, Dominique Metras, MDb, Gilbert Habib, MDa,*, Alberto Riberi, MDb

a Département de Cardiologie, Hôpital Timone, Marseille, France
b Service de Chirurgie Cardiaque, Hôpital Timone, Marseille, France
c LERTIM, Faculté de Médecine de Marseille, Hôpital Timone, Marseille, France
d Fédération de Microbiologie, Hôpital Timone, Marseille, France

Accepted for publication June 15, 2007.

* Address correspondence to Dr Habib, La Timone Hospital, Cardiology, Blvd Jean Moulin, Marseille, 13005, France (Email: gilbert.habib{at}free.fr).


This article has been selected for the open discussion forum on the CTSNet Web Site: http://www.ctsnet.org/sections/newsandviews/discussions/index.html

 

    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Background: Surgical treatment of active aortic infective endocarditis is challenging, and the type of prosthesis to be implanted during the active phase remains controversial.

Methods: All consecutive patients with definite diagnosis of aortic infective endocarditis operated on during the active phase were included. Endpoints were in-hospital mortality and a combined endpoint including infective endocarditis recurrence, prostheses dysfunction, or long-term cardiovascular mortality.

Results: Among 127 consecutive patients, mean age 57 ± 15 years, 87% male, 30% with preexisting aortic prosthesis, and 63 (50%) with annulus abscess, 54 (43%) were treated with aortic homograft and 73 (57%) with conventional prosthesis. Median time between diagnosis and surgery was 10 days. In-hospital mortality was 9%, not different between homograft and conventional prostheses (11% versus 8%, p[ = 0.6). By multivariable analysis, prosthetic valve endocarditis (8.5 95% confidence interval: 2.2 to 33.6, ]p = 0.001) was the only variable independently associated with in-hospital mortality, which was not influenced by type valvular substitute (p = 0.6), even in the subset with annulus abscess (p = 0.2). Ten-year survival free from the combined endpoint was 44% ± 10%, not different between homograft and conventional prostheses (log rank p = 0.2). By multivariable analysis, comorbidity index (2.6 [1.05 to 6.3], p = 0.04) and prosthetic valve endocarditis (2.3 [1.2 to 4.6], p = 0.02) were independently predictive of the combined endpoint, which was not determined by type of valvular substitute (p = 0.6) even in the subset with annulus abscess (p = 0.5).

Conclusions: Implantation of conventional prostheses during the active phase of aortic endocarditis yields similar low operative mortality and long-term prognosis as compared with aortic homografts, even in patients with annulus abscess.

Recent changing patterns in infective endocarditis (IE) include increased rates of early surgery, which is currently performed in almost 50% of all patients [1, 2] and a trend for decreased in-hospital mortality rates, the latter potentially related to the former [1]. Among patients operated on during the active phase, however, despite better understanding of the surgical approach [3] and standardization of antiobiotics regimen [4, 5], reported in-hospital mortality rates remain around 15% [2], and even higher among subsets such as severe heart failure patients, annulus abscess, or prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) [6]. Type of valvular substitute to be implanted has been sharply debated, and conflicting reports on its impact on outcome [7–10] did not allow clear recommendations [4, 5]. In the aortic position, cryopreserved homografts raised hopes in view of their ability to restore the aortic root in case of annulus abscess, to offer better intrinsic resistance to infection and to allow higher antibiotic penetration [5, 7, 11]. However initial enthusiasm has been tempered by low availability, technical issues [12], concerns regarding durability [13], reports of IE recurrences [14], and more importantly, by efficient alternative procedures using conventional prostheses [3, 6, 9].

Taking advantage of a prospectively enrolled population of patients with aortic IE operated on during the active phase, the present study aimed to analyze, among other determinants of outcome, the impact of the type of valvular substitutes on in-hospital mortality and long-term prognosis. We hypothesized that homograft implantation as compared with conventional prostheses is not a determinant of outcome, including among patients with annulus abscess.


    Patients and Methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Eligibility Criteria
All consecutive patients admitted in our center between January 1990 and December 2005 with a definite diagnosis of aortic IE [15, 16] on either native or prosthetic aortic valve were eligible and prospectively included in our database. Among those, patients who underwent aortic surgery during the active phase before the end of antibiotic treatment formed the present study population. This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board, and written informed consent was obtained for all patients.

Clinical Definitions
Baseline clinical data were prospectively collected at study entry. Occurrence of cerebral embolic events was screened by systematic cerebral computed tomography scan at study entry and noncerebral systemic embolic events by systematic abdominal echography or computed tomography scan depending upon creatinin level. Associated baseline medical conditions were assigned weighs and summated to calculate a comorbidity index [17]. Aortic surgery during the active phase was indicated for at least one of the following conditions: hemodynamic impairment referring to heart failure or acute severe aortic regurgitation with signs of elevated left ventricular pressure, persistent sepsis despite adequate antibiotic treatment, or high embolic risk due to persistence of large and mobile vegetation [2, 4, 5]. Synergic antibiotic treatment was conducted intravenously as recommended [4, 5]. Postoperative follow-up events were prospectively collected during routine follow-up visits systematically performed after dismissal.

Microbiological Data
Blood cultures were systematically collected at admission, and serological assessment was completed for Coxiella burnetii, Bartonella sp, Chlamydiae sp, Legionella, Brucella, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Candida sp, and Aspergillus sp. Rare microorganisms such as Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Gemella morbillorum, Corynebactéries, Bartonnella henselea, Mycoplasma hominis, Propionibacterium acnes, and Aspergillus sp were labeled "atypical microorganisms." In addition, direct analysis and polymerase chain reaction since 1995 were performed on each explanted valve.

Echocardiographic Methods
All patients underwent both transthoracic and transesophageal comprehensive echocardiography in our laboratory within 24 hours of admission by a senior cardiologist. Transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiograms were systematically repeated once a week and when clinically indicated. Data were electronically stored and used as noted at the time of original examination without alteration. Degree of aortic regurgitation when present was assessed semiquantitatively or by quantitative methods for the most recent patients and classified as mild, moderate, or severe [18]. Diagnosis of aortic annulus abscess was suspected in front of a thickened area or mass with heterogeneous echogenic or echolucent appearance at the annulus level [19].

Surgical Procedures
Indications for aortic surgery during the active phase were hemodynamic impairment in 19 patients (15%), high embolic risk in 17 (14%), persistent sepsis in 37 (29%), and more than one of the aforementioned reasons in 54 (42%). When the infection was limited to the cusps of native aortic valves or to the leaflets of aortic prostheses, surgery consisted in simple valve replacement by conventional prostheses or in implantation of aortic homograft, at the discretion of the surgeon. When infection extended to surrounding structures, surgery consisted of extensive resection of all infected tissues and their reconstruction by either autologous fresh or glutaraldehyde-fixed bovine pericardium, Dacron fabrics, or aortic homograft [3, 6]. In case of annulus abscess with annulus disruption, its reconstruction was achieved depending upon surgeon preference either by fresh autologous or glutaraldehyde-fixed bovine pericardium followed by implantation of a conventional prostheses or by direct implantation of an aortic homograft. Before 1995, the subcoronary technique was used, whereas after 1995, homografts were uniformly implanted with the aortic root replacement techniques [20, 21].

Statistical Analysis
Patients data were compared among groups with {chi}2 or Fisher’s exact test for nominal variables and with Mann-Whitney U test for ordinal variables. Endpoints were in-hospital mortality—defined as mortality occurring postoperatively before dismissal—and a combined endpoint grouping IE recurrence, noninfective prostheses dysfunction or long-term cardiovascular mortality. The effect of potential risk factors on operative mortality were examined in a logistic regression model. The effect of potential risk factors on the combined endpoint were analyzed computing Kaplan-Meier estimates, and curves were compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the adjusted effect of prognostic factors on the time dependent endpoint. All statistical tests were two-sided. For univariate analysis, p values less than 0.05 was considered significant. Multivariable analysis was performed with a forward stepwise approach with p = 0.10 as the threshold for entering or removing variables. All results obtained by multivariable analysis were systematically adjusted for type of valvular substitute (homograft versus conventional prostheses). Analyses were performed with SPSS software (version 13.0 2004; SPSS, Chicago, Illinois).


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Study Population
Preoperative characteristics
Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2005, of 206 consecutive patients admitted with a definite diagnosis of aortic IE, 127 (62%) were operated on during the active phase and formed the study population. Only 5 patients were denied surgery because of excessive operative risk. Mean age was 57 ± 15 years old (median, 58), 110 (87%) were male, and 39 (30%) had a preexisting aortic prosthesis (20 mechanical prosthesis, 16 bioprosthesis, 3 Ross procedures). Comorbidity was low, with only 13% of patients with comorbidity score greater than 2. Initial clinical presentation included heart failure due to severe aortic regurgitation in 59 patients (47%) and embolic events in 40 patients (31%) with 22 cerebral embolisms (17%). Of note, no patients presented with cardiogenic shock before surgery. Streptococcus bovis was the most frequent microbiological finding (17%) followed by Staphylococcus aureus (16.5%), oral streptococci (15%), and enterococci (12%). Blood cultures were negative in 26 patients (20%), and microorganism remained unknown in 23 patients (18%) despite polymerase chain reaction testing on the explanted valve. Echocardiographic presentation included severe aortic regurgitation in 100 patients (79%) and presence of annulus abscess with annulus disruption confirmed preoperatively in 63 (50%), including 10 fistulas. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 56% ± 10%.

Surgical procedures
Median time between diagnosis and surgery was 10 days (range, 0 to 46). Type of valvular substitute included aortic homografts in 54 patients (43%)—8 with subcoronary techniques—bioprosthesis in 50 (39%), and mechanical prosthesis in 23 (18%), including 1 Bentall procedure. In 14 patients (11%), extension of the lesions to mitral anterior leaflet required associated mitral procedures (repair in 4 patients, valve replacement in the remaining). Comparison of preoperative characteristics between patients with homograft and those with conventional prostheses is presented in Tables 1 and 2. Go


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

 
Table 1 Clinical and Echocardiographic Characteristics of 127 Patients With Aortic Infective Endocarditis Operated on During Active Phase: Stratification According to Type of Valvular Substitute and Association With Operative Mortality in Univariate Analysis
 

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

 
Table 2 Microbiological Findings in 127 Patients With Aortic Infective Endocarditis Operated on During Active Phase: Stratification According to Type of Valvular Substitute and Association With Operative Mortality in Univariate Analysis
 
In-Hospital Mortality
Twelve patients died postoperatively before dismissal, leading to 9% in-hospital mortality, without significant difference between homograft and conventional prostheses (11% versus 8% for homograft versus conventional prostheses, p = 0.6; Fig 1). Causes of death were multiorgan failure in 7 patients, cerebrovascular complications in 2, early fatal recurrence in 1, postoperative myocardial infarction in 1, and intra-abdominal hemorrhage in 1. By univariate analysis, displayed in Tables 1 and 2 (right column), the only variables associated with in-hospital mortality were as follows (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]): renal failure (3.85 [0.85 to 15.75], p = 0.04), embolic events (0.22 [0.02 to 1.10], p = 0.04), and PVE (8.50 [1.92 to 50.99], p = 0.001). Importantly, type of valvular substitute did not predict in-hospital mortality (homograft: 1.40 [0.35 to 5.56], p = 0.58). Similarly, heart failure did not predict in-hospital mortality (in-hospital mortality of 8.5% in patients with heart failure versus 10.5% in those without, p = 0.7), neither did presence of vegetation, severe aortic regurgitation, annulus abscess, associated mitral procedure, or any microbiological findings (all p > 0.1). By multivariable analysis (odds ratio [95% CI]), the only variable independently associated with in-hospital mortality was PVE (8.5 [2.2 to 33.6], p = 0.001; Fig 1). The multivariable model was systematically adjusted to type of valvular substitute, which did not influence operative mortality (0.7 [0.2 to 2.5], p = 0.6, for homograft versus conventional prostheses).


Figure 1
View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig 1. In-hospital mortality according to type of valvular substitute in the total population and in patients with native and prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). pa refers to adjusted comparison between homograft and conventional prostheses; pb refers to adjusted comparison between native and PVE. (Open bars = overall; speckled bars = homografts; gray bars = conventional prostheses.)

 
When analysis was restricted to the 88 patients with native valve endocarditis, in-hospital mortality was 3.4% (3 patients) and was similar among patients with homograft and patients with conventional prostheses (2.7% versus 3.9% for homograft versus conventional prostheses, p = 1; Fig 1).

Long-Term Recurrence, Prostheses Dysfunction, or Cardiovascular Mortality
The 115 patients who survived the operative period were followed up during 313.13 person-years (median, 2.06 years; maximum, 12). Follow-up was complete in 98% of patients.

Recurrences of IE were observed in 8 patients, 4 with homograft and 4 with conventional prostheses. Three of those patients (all with aortic homograft) required reoperation. Micro-organisms involved were oral streptococci in 3, Staphylococcus aureus in 1, Streptococcus bovis in 1, enterococci in 1, HACEK in 1, and atypical in 1. All micro-organisms during recurrence were different from the original micro-organism. Noninfective prostheses dysfunction occurred in 5 patients (3 with bioprostheses and 2 with mechanical prostheses), 2 of whom required reoperation. Cardiovascular death occurred in 24 patients, 11 with homograft and 13 with conventional prostheses.

The combined endpoint including recurrence of IE, noninfective prostheses dysfunction, or cardiovascular death was reached by 35 patients (31% [20% of patients with homograft versus 18% of patients with conventional prostheses, p = 0.7]). Five- and ten-year survival free from the endpoint were 68% ± 5% and 44% ± 10% respectively, and were not significantly different between homograft and conventional prostheses (log rank p = 0.2; Fig 2). By univariate analysis, age (p = 0.02), comorbidity index (p = 0.009), and PVE (p = 0.02) were the only variables predictive of the combined endpoint. By multivariable analysis (hazards ratio, 95% CI), comorbidity index (2.6 [1.05 to 6.3], p = 0.04) and PVE (2.3 [1.2 to 4.6], p = 0.02) remained independently predictive of the endpoint. The multivariable model was systematically adjusted to type of valvular substitute, which did not influence long-term outcome (0.6 [0.3 to 1.4], p = 0.6, for homograft versus conventional prostheses; Fig 3).


Figure 2
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig 2. Survival free from the combined endpoint according to type of valvular substitute in the total population. pa refers to adjusted comparison between homograft (H [solid line]) and conventional prostheses (CP [dashed line]).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig 3. Survival free from the combined endpoint according to type of valvular substitute, in (A) native valve endocarditis and (B) prosthetic valve endocarditis. pa refers to adjusted comparison between homograft (H [solid line] and conventional prostheses (CP [dashed line]; pb refers to adjusted comparison between native valve endocarditis and prosthetic valve endocarditis.

 
When analysis was restricted to 85 patients with native valve endocarditis who survived the operative period, 19 patients reached the combined endpoint (22%). Five- and ten-year survival free from the endpoint were 75% ± 6% and 58% ± 11% and were not different between homograft and conventional prostheses (log rank p = 0.1). By multivariable analysis, the only variables independently predictive of the endpoint were age (1.04 [1.01 to 1.08], p = 0.04), and heart failure (3.5 [1.0 to 12.3], p = 0.05). The type of valvular substitute did not influence long-term outcome (0.8 [0.3 to 2.3], p = 0.6, for homograft versus conventional prostheses).

Patients With Aortic Annular Abscess
Among 63 patients with annulus abscess, 41 (65%) were treated by aortic homografts and 22 (35%) were treated by pericardial annular reconstruction and implantation of either bioprosthesis (15 patients) or mechanical prosthesis (7 patients). Associated mitral procedures were performed in 5 patients. Among 23 patients with PVE and annulus abscess, 14 (61%) were treated by homograft and 9 (39%) by conventional prostheses. Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent microbiological finding (21%) followed by Streptococcus bovis (16%), oral streptococci (11%) and Coxiella burnetti (6%). Microorganism remained unknown in 15% of cases.

Operative mortality
Seven patients died postoperatively before dismissal leading to 11% operative mortality, not significantly higher than in patients without annulus abscess (8% operative mortality, p = 0.5). Operative mortality appeared higher among patients with homograft as compared with conventional prostheses but the difference was not significant (14.5% versus 4.5%, p = 0.4). By multivariable analysis (odds ratio [95% CI]), PVE (12.4 [1.4 to 114.2], p < 0.001) was the only variable independently associated with operative mortality, which was not influenced by type of valvular substitute (4.7 [0.5 to 45.1], p = 0.2, for homograft versus conventional prostheses).

The 56 patients who survived the operative period were followed up during 167.85 person-years (median, 2.85 years; maximum, 11). During follow-up, recurrence of IE was observed in 5 patients, 4 with homograft and 1 with conventional prostheses (p = 0.7). The combined endpoint was reached by 19 patients (34%), and 5-year survival free from the endpoint was 68% ± 7%, and was not significantly different between homograft and conventional prostheses (log rank p = 0.5; Fig 4). Multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [95% CI]) identified Staphylococcus aureus infection (4.3 [1.2 to 15.2], p = 0.02) and negative blood cultures (6.2 [2.1 to 18.7], p = 0.001) as the only variables independently predictive of the endpoint, which was not influenced by type of valvular substitute (0.7 [0.2 to 2.0], p = 0.5, for homograft versus conventional prostheses).


Figure 4
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig 4. Survival free from the combined endpoint according to type of valvular substitute in patients with aortic annular abscess. pa refers to adjusted comparison between homograft (H [solid line]) and conventional prostheses (CP [dashed line]).

 

    Comment
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
This study, conducted over a 15-year period among patients routinely admitted in a tertiary care center for aortic IE, reports low in-hospital mortality and long-term complication rates among those operated on during the active phase for hemodynamic impairment, persistent sepsis, or high embolic risk. These results were similarly observed in patients with severe initial conditions such as heart failure or annulus abscess, and were not influenced by the type of valvular substitutes. Aortic homografts did not provide improved outcome as compared with conventional prostheses, including in the subset of patients with annulus abscess.

The recently reported trend in decreased in-hospital mortality [1] in patients with IE may find an explanation in improvements in the medical management of the disease with standardization of length, nature and mode of administration of antibiotic regimens [4, 5], but also in a multidisciplinary approach [22] involving cardiologists, infectious disease consultants, and cardiac surgeons. The increased rate of early surgery consistently reported in the recent years is indeed a fundamental evolution in the management of IE, with nearly half of patients operated on during the active phase [1, 2] and could be another explanation for the observed improved outcome [1]. However, in-hospital mortality rates among operated patients remain high, particularly among those with severe heart failure preoperatively, annulus abscess, or PVE [2, 6]. In the quest for determinants of postoperative outcome improvement, cryopreserved homografts fulfill all theoretical requirements, namely, ability of restoring the aortic root anatomy and of providing best hemodynamic profile with no need for anticoagulation, intrinsic resistance to infection, and better penetration of antibiotics [7, 23]. Promising results were accordingly reported, including in high-risk subsets such as patients with annulus abscess or PVE [7, 24].

These results were tempered however with those similarly satisfactory, obtained with conventional prostheses [6], including in patients with annulus abscess [3] or PVE [9]. Only a few studies [7, 10] compared respective use of both types of valvular substitutes and yields discordant results. Moreover, besides technical difficulties of aortic homograft implantation and unresolved issues regarding the best techniques [12], their low availability [2], reports of endocarditis recurrences [23], uncertainties regarding durability [13], signs of rejection, and absence of viability on explanted specimen [14] emphasized that homograft may not be the once expected panacea. Our data, which account for the very few [7, 10] comparing a reasonable number of patients with active aortic IE and indifferently treated in the same institution with either aortic homograft or conventional prostheses, failed to demonstrate the superiority of the former over the latter.

The absence of impact on outcome of aortic homograft, both in terms of operative mortality and long-term recurrences, prostheses dysfunction, or cardiovascular mortality, including in the subsets of patients with annulus abscess, is further enhanced by less severe preoperative clinical conditions in patients with homografts as attested by younger age, lower comorbidity index, and lower rate of heart failure. The larger number of homografts implanted in patients with annulus abscess, which reflects in part the preference of one of our surgeons who operated on the largest number of patients, may nevertheless reflect actual different anatomic presentation and the same echocardiographic finding (ie, annulus abscess) can hide different surgical lesions. We do not refute the fact that some patients with extreme annulus disruption and aortic root destruction are more easily treated by homografts implantation by a surgeon with specific training and skill in this tecnics. However, most of these lesions can also be treated by pericardial reconstruction of the annulus and aortic root replacement with composite graft, and although not randomized, our data show that when implantation of conventional material is feasible, results are similar to those obtained with homografts implantation including in the subset with annulus abscess. These data therefore do not support systematic use of homografts, including in patients with annulus abscess.

Radical, extensive extirpation of all infected tissues as already advocated [3, 6] and systematically performed in our surgical department rather than the type of valvular substitute per se could thus be a plausible explanation of the observed low in-hospital mortality and long-term complication rates. These results, which compare favorably with the recently published European data [2], could find another potential explication in aggressive surgical indications as attested to by higher rates of patients operated on during the active phase (62%) compared with those commonly reported [1, 2] and by short median time between diagnosis and surgery. This aggressive surgical management has been for long the policy of our department and does not reflect referral to our center of the most severe patients, as none was operated on in cardiogenic shock and only 5 were contraindicated owing to excessive operative risk during the study period. Early surgery before intractable heart failure or excessive extension of anatomic lesions may explain the unexpected [6] absence of excess mortality observed among patients with heart failure or annulus abscess, which will deserve future prospective studies to be confirmed. These encouraging results, however, should not mask the persistent high risk carried by PVE, consistently reported [6] and similarly observed in our series despite this aggressive surgical approach. The increased in-hospital mortality and long-term complication rates in patients with PVE seem to be mainly due to complexity of surgical treatment [6] and should recall to us the critical need for promoting valve repair over replacement [25].

Study Limitations
Obviously, our patients were not randomly allocated to either homografts or conventional prostheses, which does not allow definite statement on their respective impact on outcome. However, the choice of the type of valvular substitutes was mostly dependent on the surgeon preference and inclination for the type of prostheses he was comfortable with. Moreover, the two groups compare well, and the only significant differences in baseline comparison between homografts and conventional prostheses did not favor the latter. Lastly, referral bias in tertiary care centers is always possible; although our center is the main referral center for the disease in our region, the clinical, echocardiographic, and microbiological picture of our population was closed to that reported in a population-based setting [1].

In conclusion, among patients operated on during the active phase of aortic infective endocarditis for hemodynamic impairment, persistent sepsis, or high embolic risk, implantation of conventional material when technically feasible was associated with similar outcome as aortic homograft implantation. Low in-hospital mortality and long-term complications rates were similarly observed among all subsets but PVE, including patients with heart failure or annulus abscess, irrespective of the type of valvular substitutes. Early aggressive surgical management of aortic endocarditis, including complete large resection of all infected tissues, might be one explanation for the good short-term and long-term results obtained in this particularly high-risk population.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 

  1. Hoen B, Alla F, Selton-Suty C, et al. Changing profile of infective endocarditis: results of a 1-year survey in France JAMA 2002;288:75-81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Tornos P, Iung B, Permanyer-Miralda G, et al. Infective endocarditis in Europe: lessons from the Euro Heart Survey Heart 2005;91:571-575.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. d’Udekem Y, David T, Feindel C, Armstrong S, Sun Z. Long-term results of operation for paravalvular abscess Ann Thorac Surg 1996;62:48-53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Horstkotte D, Follath F, Gutschik E, et al. Guidelines on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis executive summary; the task force on infective endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology Eur Heart J 2004;25:267-276.[Free Full Text]
  5. Baddour L, Wilson W, Bayer A, et al. Infective endocarditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America Circulation 2005;111:e394-e434.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. David T, Gavra G, Feindel C, Regesta T, Armstrong S, Maganti M. Surgical treatment of active infective endocarditis: a continued challenge J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:144-149.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Knosalla C, Weng Y, Yankah AC, et al. Surgical treatment of active infective aortic valve endocarditis with associated periannular abscess—11 year results Eur Heart J 2000;21:490-497.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Moon MR, Miller D, Moore K, 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]
  9. Hagl C, Galla J, Lansman S, et al. Replacing the ascending aorta and aortic valve for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis: is using prosthetic material contraindicated? Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74(Suppl):1781-1785.
  10. Leyh R, Knobloch K, Hagl C, et al. Replacement of the aortic root for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis: prosthetic composite versus aortic allograft root replacement J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;1271416–120.
  11. McGiffin D, Galbraith A, McLachlan G, et al. Aortic valve infection: risk factors for death and recurrent endocarditis after aortic valve replacement J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992;104:511-520.[Abstract]
  12. Athanasiou T, Jones C, Jin R, Grunkemeier G, Ross D. Homograft implantation techniques in the aortic position: to preserve or replace the aortic root? Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:1578-1586.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Takkenberg J, Eijkemans M, van Herwerden L, et al. Prognosis after aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allografts in adults Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1482-1489.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Vogt P, von Segesser L, Jenni R, et al. Emergency surgery for acute infective aortic valve endocarditis: performance of cryopreserved homografts and mode of failure Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1997;11:53-61.[Abstract]
  15. Von Reyn C, Levy B, Arbeit R, Friedland G, Crumpacker C. Infective endocarditis: an analysis based on strict case definitions Ann Int Med 1981;94:505-518.[Medline]
  16. Durack D, Lukes A, Bright D. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings Am J Med 1994;96:200-209.[Medline]
  17. Charlson M, Pompei P, Ales K, MacKenzie C. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-383.[Medline]
  18. Zoghbi W, Enriquez-Sarano M, Foster H, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with two-dimensional and Dopller echocardioraphy J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003;16:777-802.[Medline]
  19. Daniel W, Mugge A, Martin R, et al. Improvement in the diagnosis of abscesses associated with endocarditis by transesophageal echocardiography N Engl J Med 1991;324:795-800.[Abstract]
  20. Ross D. Homograft replacement of the aortic valve Lancet 1962;2:487.[Medline]
  21. Lund O, Chandrasekaran V, Grocott-Mason R, et al. Primary aortic valve replacement with allografts over twenty-five years: valve-related and procedure-related determinants of outcome J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;117:77-91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Moreillon P. Infective endocarditis Lancet 2004;363:139-149.[Medline]
  23. Yankah A, Klose H, Petzina R, Musci M, Siniawski H, Hetzer R. Surgical management of acute aortic root endocarditis with viable homograft: 13-year experience 2002;21:260-267.
  24. Sabik J, Lytle B, Blackstone E, Marullo A, Pettersson G, Cosgrove D. Aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allograft for prosthetic valve endocarditis Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:650-659.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Enriquez-Sarano M, Schaff H, Orszulak T, Tajik A, Bailey K, Frye R. Valve repair improves the outcome of surgery for mitral regurgitation Circulation 1995;91:1264-1265.[Free Full Text]

Related Article

Invited commentary
Tomislav Mihaljevic
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007 84: 1942. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
Endorsed by the European Society of Clinical Micro, Authors/Task Force Members, G. Habib, B. Hoen, P. Tornos, F. Thuny, B. Prendergast, I. Vilacosta, P. Moreillon, M. de Jesus Antunes, et al.
Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis (new version 2009): The Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)
Eur. Heart J., October 1, 2009; 30(19): 2369 - 2413.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
H. A. Cooper, E. C. Thompson, R. Laureno, A. Fuisz, A. S. Mark, M. Lin, and S. A. Goldstein
Subclinical Brain Embolization in Left-Sided Infective Endocarditis: Results From the Evaluation by MRI of the Brains of Patients With Left-Sided Intracardiac Solid Masses (EMBOLISM) Pilot Study
Circulation, August 18, 2009; 120(7): 585 - 591.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ICVTSHome page
S. Rekik, I. Trabelsi, I. Maaloul, M. Hentati, A. Hammami, I. Frikha, M. Ben Jemaa, and S. Kammoun
Short- and long-term outcomes of surgery for active infective endocarditis: a Tunisian experience
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, August 1, 2009; 9(2): 241 - 245.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
S. H. Rahimtoola
The Year in Valvular Heart Disease
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 19, 2009; 53(20): 1894 - 1908.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
T. Mihaljevic
Invited commentary
Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2007; 84(6): 1942 - 1942.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Discussion
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):
Thierry Mesana
Frederic Collart
Dominique Metras
Alberto Riberi
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Avierinos, J.-F.
Right arrow Articles by Riberi, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Avierinos, J.-F.
Right arrow Articles by Riberi, A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease
Right arrowRelated Article


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