Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After Aortic Valve Replacement: Differences Between Biological and Mechanical Prostheses.

AIMS: Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is the most severe form of infective endocarditis associated with a high mortality rate. Whether PVE affects biological and mechanical aortic valves to the same extent remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of re-intervention because of PVE between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or combined AVR in a single cardiac surgery centre between January 1998 and December 2019 were analysed. All patients who underwent re-intervention because of PVE were identified. The primary endpoint was the rate of explants. Freedom from re-intervention and variables associated with re-intervention were analysed using Cox regression analysis including correction for competing risk. RESULTS: During the study period, 5,983 aortic valve prostheses were implanted, including 3,620 biological (60.5%) and 2,363 mechanical (39.5%) prostheses. The overall mean follow-up period was 7.3±5.3 years (median, 6.5; IQR 2.9-11.2 years). The rate of re-intervention for PVE in the biological group was 1.5% (n=54) compared with 1.7% (n=40) in the mechanical group (p=0.541). Cox regression analysis revealed that younger age (HR 0.960, 95% CI 0.942-0.979; p<0.001), male sex (HR 2.362, 95% CI 1.384-4.033; p=0.002), higher creatinine (HR 1.002, 95% CI 0.999-1.004; p=0.057), and biological valve prosthesis (HR 2.073, 95% CI 1.258-3.414; p=0.004) were associated with re-intervention for PVE. After correction for competing risk of death, biological valve prosthesis was significantly associated with a higher rate of re-intervention for PVE (HR 2.011, 95% CI 1.177-3.437; p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: According to this single-centre, observational, retrospective cohort study, AVR using biological prosthesis is associated with re-intervention for PVE compared to mechanical prosthesis. Further investigations are needed to verify these findings.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Cutibacterium acnes Endocarditis.

Importance: It is suggested that patients with Cutibacterium acnes endocarditis often present without fever or abnormal inflammatory markers. However, no study has yet confirmed this statement. Objective: To assess the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with C acnes endocarditis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A case series of 105 patients presenting to 7 hospitals in the Netherlands and France (4 university hospitals and 3 teaching hospitals) with definite endocarditis according to the modified Duke criteria between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020, was performed. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were retrieved from medical records. Cases were identified by blood or valve and prosthesis cultures positive for C acnes, retrieved from the medical microbiology databases. Infected pacemaker or internal cardioverter defibrillator lead cases were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed in November 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included symptoms at presentation, presence of prosthetic valve endocarditis, laboratory test results at presentation, time to positive results of blood cultures, 30-day and 1-year mortality rates, type of treatment (conservative or surgical), and endocarditis relapse rates. Results: A total of 105 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.1 [13.9] years; 96 men [91.4%]; 93 patients [88.6%] with prosthetic valve endocarditis) were identified and included. Seventy patients (66.7%) did not experience fever prior to hospital admission, nor was it present at hospitalization. The median C-reactive protein level was 3.6 mg/dL (IQR, 1.2-7.5 mg/dL), and the median leukocyte count was 10.0 × 103/µL (IQR, 8.2-12.2 × 103/µL). The median time to positive blood culture results was 7 days (IQR, 6-9 days). Surgery or reoperation was indicated for 88 patients and performed for 80 patients. Not performing the indicated surgical procedure was associated with high mortality rates. Seventeen patients were treated conservatively, in accordance with the European Society of Cardiology guideline; these patients showed relatively high rates of endocarditis recurrence (5 of 17 [29.4%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This case series suggests that C acnes endocarditis was seen predominantly among male patients with prosthetic heart valves. Diagnosing C acnes endocarditis is difficult due to its atypical presentation, with frequent absence of fever and inflammatory markers. The prolonged time to positivity of blood culture results further delays the diagnostic process. Not performing a surgical procedure when indicated seems to be associated with higher mortality rates. For prosthetic valve endocarditis with small vegetations, there should be a low threshold for surgery because this group seems prone to endocarditis recurrence.

Recovery of conduction disorders after sutureless aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Conduction disorders and the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after surgical aortic valve replacement are well-recognized complications. However, in the case of sutureless valve prostheses, it remains unknown whether pacemaker (PM) dependency and conduction disturbances resolve over time. Our aim was to evaluate whether conduction disorders after Perceval sutureless valve implantation recover during follow-up. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement or concomitant aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass surgery using the Perceval sutureless valve, between January 2010 and July 2018, were included. Postoperative electrocardiogram findings were analysed to determine the incidence of new-onset left bundle branch blocks (LBBBs) and the requirement for PPM implantation. During a postoperative period of 6-18 months, electrocardiogram findings during PM checks were analysed to determine PM dependency and LBBB persistence. RESULTS: Out of 184 patients who received a Perceval prosthesis during the study period, 39 (21.2%) patients developed new-onset LBBB and 10 patients (5.4%) received a PPM postoperatively. The occurrence of conduction disorders was not associated with valve size. Follow-up was completed in 176 (95.7%) patients. In patients with a new-onset LBBB, 35.9% recovered during follow-up (P = 0.001). Seven out of 10 (70%) patients remained PM dependent. CONCLUSIONS: After Perceval aortic valve implantation, new-onset LBBB recovers in more than one-third of patients during follow-up. In patients who needed a postoperative PPM, the majority remained PM dependent.

Reintervention After Aortic Valve Replacement: Comparison of 3 Aortic Bioprostheses.

BACKGROUND: The decision to implant a biological valve prosthesis is influenced by the issue of durability. We investigated the rate and the cause of reintervention in 3 different aortic valve bioprostheses. METHODS: The study included all patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a biological valve prosthesis between October 2009 and December 2018. Three different bioprostheses were compared: Carpentier-Edwards (CE) Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), Trifecta (St. Jude Medical, St Paul, MN), and Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom). The primary end point was the rate of explantation. The degree of event-free survival and possible predictors for reintervention were also analyzed using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 2004 biological aortic valves were implanted, including 923 CE, 719 Trifecta, and 362 Mitroflow bioprostheses. The CE group had a significantly higher degree of event-free survival (917 [99.3%]) compared with the Trifecta (685 [95.3%]) and Mitroflow (340 [93.9%]) groups (P < .0001). The only cause of reintervention in the CE group was prosthetic valve endocarditis (6 [100%]), whereas structural valve deterioration was the most common cause of reintervention in the Trifecta (14 [41.2%]) and Mitroflow (14 [63.6%]) groups. Cox regression analysis revealed that age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-0.9; P < .0001) and type of prosthesis (Trifecta: HR, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.6-15.2; P < .0001; Mitroflow: HR, 6.0, 95% CI, 2.4-15.1; P < .0001) were associated with lower event-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: The freedom from reintervention after implantation of the CE bioprosthesis is significantly greater than that of the Trifecta and Mitroflow bioprostheses. Further investigations with larger patient populations and long-term follow-up are required to establish their durability and long-term efficacy.