Explore the vast range of titles available.

An 81-year-old male patient in Germany had prosthetic valve endocarditis caused by Pasteurella dagmatis after a domestic cat bite. We surgically treated a paravalvular abscess and administered definitive antibiotic therapy consisting of penicillin G and levofloxacin. The patient was discharged from the intensive care unit in good condition 21 days after the surgery.

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease, and in many cases, surgery is necessary. Whether the type of prosthesis implanted for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for IE impacts patient survival is a matter of debate. The aim of the present study is to quantify differences in long-term survival and recurrence of endocarditis AVR for IE according to prosthesis type among patients aged 40 to 65 years. Methods: This was an analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY. Trends in proportion to the use of mechanical prostheses versus biological ones over time were tested by applying the sieve bootstrapped t-test. Confounders were adjusted using the optimal full-matching propensity score. The difference in overall survival was compared using the Cox model, whereas the differences in recurrence of endocarditis were evaluated using the Gray test. Results: Overall, 4365 patients were diagnosed and operated on for IE from 2000 to 2021. Of these, 549, aged between 40 and 65 years, underwent AVR. A total of 268 (48.8%) received mechanical prostheses, and 281 (51.2%) received biological ones. A significant trend in the reduction of implantation of mechanical vs. biological prostheses was observed during the study period (p < 0.0001). Long-term survival was significantly higher among patients receiving a mechanical prosthesis than those receiving a biological prosthesis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.546, 95% CI: 0.322–0.926, p = 0.025). Mechanical prostheses were associated with significantly less recurrent endocarditis after AVR than biological prostheses (HR 0.268, 95%CI: 0.077–0.933, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The present analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY shows increased survival and reduced recurrence of endocarditis after a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis implant for IE in middle-aged patients.

Objective: Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Information regarding the long-term outcome of PVE is scarce in Turkey. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term mortality rates of PVE and identify predictors of mortality in these patients. Methods: From January 2008 through August 2013, 44 patients (25 male, 19 female; mean age 49.3+-12.1 years) who received a definitive diagnosis of PVE enrolled in the study. Median follow-up period was 23 months. Survival status was assessed for each patient by reviewing charts and making contact by phone. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate outcome predictors. Results: The mitral valve was the most commonly affected valve and Staphylococcus aureus the most prevalent microorganism. Fourteen patients (32%) underwent surgery, 7 of whom underwent early surgery. Overall mortality and in-hospital mortality rates were 39% (n=17) and 25% (n=11), respectively. In multivariate analysis, NYHA classification >2 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–11.8; p=0.03), early-onset PVE (HR 4.23; 95% CI, 1.1–16.42; p=0.04), vegetation size ≥10 mm (HR 3.94; 95% CI, 1.1–14.75; p=0.04), and heart failure (HR 4.18; 95% CI, 1.36–12.8; p=0.01) were found to be independent predictors of mortality. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that PVE is associated with increased long-term mortality rates. Poor functional status, early-onset PVE, heart failure, and vegetation size are independent predictors of survival in patients with PVE.

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is a potentially life-threatening complication following valve replacement surgery, with an increasing incidence due to the rise in prosthetic valve procedures. Accurate and timely diagnosis of PVE remains challenging due to altered cardiac anatomy and imaging artifacts. Traditional diagnostic tools, such as Duke criteria, were originally developed for native valve endocarditis and demonstrate suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the context of PVE. Recent advancements incorporated novel molecular and imaging modalities, such as polymerase chain reaction and nuclear imaging techniques, in an attempt to improve the diagnostic accuracy. However, no single modality currently serves as a definitive gold standard. In conclusion, in this review, we critically compare the diagnostic performance of available tools for PVE, analyzing their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. We further propose a practice approach to facilitate early and accurate diagnosis, ultimately aiming to improve clinical outcomes in patients with suspected PVE.

Background and aimsProsthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is the prognostically most unfavourable complication after aortic valve replacement. This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of the different pathological and therapeutical aspects between PVE following surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI).MethodsAll patients who had undergone primary isolated SAVR (n = 3447) or TAVI (n = 2269) at our Centre between 01/2012 and 12/2018 were analysed. Diagnosis of PVE was based on Duke criteria modified in 2015. Incidence, risk factors, pathogens, impact of complications or therapy on mortality were analysed and compared between SAVR- and TAVI-PVE.ResultsPVE incidence did not differ significantly after SAVR with 4.9/100 patient-years and TAVI with 2.4/100 patient-years (p = 0.49), although TAVI patients were older (mean 80 vs. 67 years) and had more comorbidities (STS score mean 5.9 vs. 1.6) (p < 0.001). TAVI prostheses with polymer showed a 4.3-fold higher risk to develop PVE than without polymer (HR 4.3; p = 0.004). Most common pathogens were staphylococci and enterococci (p > 0.05). Propensity-score matching analysis showed that the type of aortic valve replacement had no effect on the development of post-procedural PVE (p = 0.997). One-year survival was higher in TAVI-PVE patients treated with antibiotics only compared to additional surgical therapy (90.9% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.005). In SAVR-PVE patients, both therapies were comparable in terms of survival (p = 0.861). However, SAVR-PVE patients who were not operated, despite ESC-guideline recommendation, had significantly poorer one-year survival (p = 0.004).ConclusionTAVI patients did not have a significantly higher risk to develop PVE. Our data suggest that TAVI-PVE patients in contrast to SAVR-PVE patients can more often be treated with antibiotics only, presumably due to the lack of a polymeric suture ring.Key question:What are the differences between SAVR- and TAVI-PVE?Are the current ESC guidelines for the treatment of SAVR-PVE also applicable to TAVI-PVE?Key finding:No significantly different PVE incidences after SAVR and TAVISignificantly better one-year survival and significantly longer survival in TAVI-PVE treated with antibiotics only compared with additional surgical therapyHigher risk to develop PVE after TAVI in patients carrying prostheses containing polymer particlesTake-home messageTAVI-PVE can often be treated successfully with antibiotics-only, even if surgery would have been indicated according to current guidelines.SAVR-PVE patients benefit from surgical therapy, so guideline-compliant surgical indication should be made promptly and performed immediately

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has brought in recent years relief of cardiac-induced symptoms to a large number of patients with aortic stenosis. Whether it is better to use TAVI for the treatment of aortic valve stenosis superimposed on a congenitally bicuspid valve has been debated in contrast to its proved usefulness in aortic valve stenosis involving a tricuspid aortic valve. From January 2020 to March 2023, surgical aortic valve replacement of TAVI valve and native aortic valve was done in 6 patients. The clinical findings of the patients and morphologic findings from the surgical specimens submitted to the cardiac pathology department were subsequently examined. All the 6 native aortic valves had bicuspid configuration. The TAVI valve in each patient was excised from 9 to 88 months (mean 36 months) after it had been implanted because of paravalvular leak in 4, severe stenosis of the prosthetic valve in 1, and bioprosthetic cuspal degeneration in 1. Prosthetic valve endocarditis was clinically suspected in 2 patients, but the specimen culture was negative. Before surgical aortic valve replacement, 3 patients experienced stroke after TAVI. All 6 patients had low hemoglobin levels (mean 9.5 mg/100 ml) and low hematocrit levels (mean 29.5%). Reticulocyte count was available in 4 patients and was increased in all (mean 3.5%). When the stenotic native aortic valve configuration is bicuspid, the raphe tends to be calcified first and located perpendicular to the flow of the blood and may prevent the ring of the caged bioprosthesis from being transferred to the aortic wall, which is a requirement for full opening of the lumen of the bioprosthesis. Thus, thorough consideration needs to be made before performing TAVI in patients whose native aortic valve is stenotic and bicuspid.

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) due to Candida albicans was diagnosed in a 58-year-old woman 1 year after mitral bioprosthetic replacement for severe regurgitation. The diagnosis was prompted by recurrent fever and confirmed by positive blood cultures and echocardiographic vegetations. The isolate was susceptible to amphotericin B, azoles, and echinocandins. Despite meeting surgical criteria, the patient declined reoperation. Salvage therapy with liposomal amphotericin B combined with high-dose caspofungin successfully resolved symptoms and led to vegetation regression on follow-up imaging. The patient was discharged on lifelong suppressive antifungal therapy based on susceptibility profiling.

Objectives The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the agreement in findings between ECG-gated CT and transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients with aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). Methods Twenty-seven consecutive patients with PVE underwent 64-slice ECG-gated CT and TEE and the results were compared. Imaging was compared with surgical findings (surgery was performed in 16 patients). Results TEE suggested the presence of PVE in all patients [thickened aortic wall ( n  = 17), vegetation ( n  = 13), abscess ( n  = 16), valvular dehiscence ( n  = 10)]. ECG-gated CT was positive in 25 patients (93 %) [thickened aortic wall ( n  = 19), vegetation ( n  = 7), abscess ( n  = 18), valvular dehiscence ( n  = 7)]. The strength of agreement [kappa (95 % CI)] between ECG-gated CT and TEE was very good for thickened wall [0.83 (0.62–1.0)], good for abscess [0.68 (0.40–0.97)] and dehiscence [0.75 (0.48–1.0)], and moderate for vegetation [0.55 (0.26–0.88)]. The agreement was good between surgical findings (abscess, vegetation and dehiscence) and imaging for ECG-gated CT [0.66 (0.49–0.87)] and TEE [0.79 (0.62–0.96)] and very good for the combination of ECG-gated CT and TEE [0.88 (0.74–1.0)]. Conclusion Our results indicate that ECG-gated CT has comparable diagnostic performance to TEE and may be a valuable complement in the preoperative evaluation of patients with aortic PVE.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe cardiac condition associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, the modified Duke’s criteria have been used to establish the diagnosis of IE, which includes using transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. While echocardiography performs well in diagnosing native valve endocarditis, its diagnostic accuracy decreases in patients with prosthetic valves or implanted cardiac devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators. Given these limitations and advancements in cardiac imaging, including multimodal computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography, there has been growing interest in the utility of these techniques for diagnosing prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) and Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection (CIEDI). Although numerous studies have investigated the value of these imaging modalities, their findings have been inconsistent. This article aims to reevaluate the role of advanced imaging in diagnosing PVE and CIEDI and its impact on managing prosthetic valves and device-related infective endocarditis. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Embase, and other relevant databases. Key terms such as ‘infective endocarditis,’ ‘multimodal imaging,’ ‘prosthetic valve endocarditis,’ ‘18F-FDG PET,’ ‘cardiac MRI,’ and ‘cardiac CT’ were used to identify studies that investigated the role of these imaging modalities in diagnosing PVE and CIEDI. Publications with full text including randomized controlled trials, retrospective studies, case reports, case series, reviews of literature, and society guidelines were included.

Simultaneous or sequential combination of prosthetic valve (PV) thrombosis and infectious endocarditis is a rare clinical finding. The management of these patients involves a complex multidisciplinary strategy using clinical judgment and imaging techniques. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and especially 3D transesophageal echocardiography is essential. Moreover, positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose (F18-FDG PET/CT) can be a valuable tool to diagnose and manage these complicated clinical scenarios.We present the case of a 65-year-old patient who was admitted in our clinic for paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea and chills for one week. He had multiple surgical interventions for rheumatic mitral valve disease (percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty in 2008, and mitral valve replacement and tricuspid annuloplasty in October 2019).At admission, the diagnosis of prosthetic valve thrombosis was established taking into account the clinical context (low INR values for the last two months), the patient symptoms and the echocardiographic findings. IV unfractionated heparin was administered. One week after admission the patient’s clinical status further deteriorated. TEE reevaluation showed partial thrombus regression with elements suggestive for concomitant infectious endocarditis. The diagnosis key is the clinical evolution and repeated TEE evaluations. In our case, they enabled the probable diagnosis of a sequential association of thrombosis and infectious endocarditis on mechanical PV. The therapeutic approach requires a high clinical suspicion and a prompt management, emergent surgery being the only lifesaving strategy in unstable patients with obstructive mechanical pathology.