[Surgical therapy of infective endocarditis. General aspects and case report]. / Indikationen zur herzchirurgischen Therapie bei Endokarditis. Fallbeschreibung und allgemeine Aspekte.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis due to viridans streptococci is associated with a mortality of 5-10%. Even today, it remains difficult to diagnose it at an early stage, to select a sufficient antibiotic therapy and to choose the right time for surgical intervention. CASE REPORT: A 37-year-old male patient presented with anemia, fever, adynamia and a loud systolic murmur over the base of the heart. Blood culture data were positive for Streptococcus mitis. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed an endocarditis of the aortic and mitral valve with regurgitations as well as a hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. The hemodynamically stable patient was treated with penicillin G, gentamicin and verapamil. Because of an extension of valve vegetations and a decline in the hemodynamic situation with an incipient sepsis, the patient was surgically treated urgently by replacement of the aortic and mitral valve as well as a Morrow septal myectomy. A postoperative sepsis required the application of high catecholamine doses. Because of a respiratory insufficiency, a prolonged mechanical ventilation was required. Finally, the patient could be discharged for in-hospital rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: The indication for surgical therapy in patients with endocarditis of the aortic and mitral valve as well as hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy should be critically discussed with regard to the patient's age, the aims of conservative therapy, and the consequences of a surgical intervention. If there are any indices of a disease progress in spite of antibiotic therapy, patients should be subjected to cardiac surgery immediately.

Quality of life after aortic root surgery: reimplantation technique versus composite replacement.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate the safety of the aortic valve reimplantation technique (David operation) in the long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare the results of the David operation with those of the aortic composite replacement procedure, with the focus on quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Within a 6-year period, 143 patients received either an aortic composite replacement (composite group, n = 67) or the David-I operation (David group, n = 76). The QoL of 108 patients (87% of the living patients) was evaluated postoperatively by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. A subgroup analysis of QoL excluded patients with aortic stenosis and type A acute aortic dissection. RESULTS: Hospital survival rates (89.6% versus 97.4%, p = 0.102), as well as actuarial 1-year survival rate (86.6% versus 91.9%) and 3-year survival rate (81.1% versus 91.9%) proved more successful among the David group. Incidences of serious adverse events during the follow-up period (10.8% versus 28.3%, p = 0.008) were higher for patients of the composite group. The QoL was found to be compromised for patients of the composite group, in relation to all criteria outlined in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Subgroup analysis without patients with dissection and aortic stenosis demonstrated a significantly better postoperative QoL for patients of the David group. Patients belonging to the composite group were more frequently compromised by prosthetic valve noise (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the superiority of the aortic valve reimplantation compared with the aortic composite replacement, regarding both clinical outcome and postoperative QoL.