Survival and Recurrence of Endocarditis following Mechanical vs. Biological Aortic Valve Replacement for Endocarditis in Patients Aged 40 to 65 Years: Data from the INFECT-Registry.

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.

The day after tomorrow: cardiac surgery and coronavirus disease-2019.

The impact of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced the governments worldwide to deal with an unprecedented health crisis. The aim of this review is to summarize what happened to cardiac surgery worldwide during the first wave of this pandemic. A literature search was performed to extrapolate key concepts regarding guidelines and reorganization of cardiac surgery wards during COVID-19. Supporting literature was also included to discuss the hot topics related to COVID-19 and cardiac surgery. Hence, both official documents from national scientific societies and single- or multiple-center experiences during the pandemics are reviewed and discussed. In Italy, the first western country hit by the pandemic, two different models were proposed to cope with the need for ICU/ward beds and to reallocate cardiac surgical services: Hub-and-Spoke system ('Hubs', dedicated to perform urgent and nondeferrable surgery, and 'Spokes', turned into COVID centers) and/or a progressive reduction in surgical activity. Worldwide, several guidelines/consensus statements were published, suggesting how to deal with the outbreak. Two different approaches for stratifying surgical indications were proposed: dynamic, based on the number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients; static, based only on the severity of the cardiovascular disease. Moreover, the importance of personal protective equipment was stressed. Several measures should have been adopted to deal with an unprecedented need for healthcare resources allocation to care for COVID-19 patients, putting the healthcare systems under serious stress. Cardiac surgery has, as have most surgical activities, been asked to reduce its own activity, giving priority to emergency and nondeferrable cases.

Prognostic value of SARS-CoV-2 on patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze Italian Cardiac Surgery experience during the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) identifying risk factors for overall mortality according to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) status. METHODS: From February 20 to May 31, 2020, 1354 consecutive adult patients underwent cardiac surgery at 22 Italian Centers; 589 (43.5%), patients came from the red zone. Based on COVID-19 status, 1306 (96.5%) were negative to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-N), and 48 (3.5%) were positive to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-P); among the COVID-P 11 (22.9%) and 37 (77.1%) become positive, before and after surgery, respectively. Surgical procedures were as follows: 396 (29.2%) isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 714 (52.7%) isolated non-CABG procedures, 207 (15.3%) two associate procedures, and three or more procedures in 37 (2.7%). Heart failure was significantly predominant in group COVID-N (10.4% vs. 2.5%, p = .01). RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 1.6% (22 cases), being significantly higher in COVID-P group (10 cases, 20.8% vs. 12, 0.9%, p < .001). Multivariable analysis identified COVID-P condition as a predictor of in-hospital mortality together with emergency status. In the COVID-P subgroup, the multivariable analysis identified increasing age and low oxygen saturation at admission as risk factors for in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: As expected, SARS-CoV-2 infection, either before or soon after cardiac surgery significantly increases in-hospital mortality. Moreover, among COVID-19-positive patients, older age and poor oxygenation upon admission seem to be associated with worse outcomes.

Main Risk Factor in Long-Term Postoperative Aortic Root Enlargement After Aortic Valve Surgery Associated with Ascending Aorta Replacement.

AIM: Dilatation of the aortic root (AR) after aortic valve surgery associated with ascending aorta replacement (AVS+AAR) is an important concern in long-term follow-up (FU). This study aimed to identify factors that may be associated with this late complication. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two-hundred-sixteen consecutive patients (150 males and 66 females) who underwent AVS+AAR from June 2009 to April 2018 at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. The mean trans-thoracic echocardiographic (TTE) FU was 44.9 ± 22.2 months. An increase of 10% in AR size compared to the pre-operative baseline was the outcome variable. The Student t-test or chi-square test was used as appropriate. For a survival analysis, a Kaplan-Meier curve was computed and a log-rank p-value was calculated. Cox's regression model was used to assess the predictive value of variables over time. A p-value < 0.05 was significant. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed among patients who underwent aortic valve repair and those who underwent aortic valve replacement (log-rank = 0.917). In patients who underwent valve replacement, AR enlargement was associated with the difference between the diameter of the prosthetic valve and the diameter of the straight vascular prosthesis (OR 0.87, P = 0.024). Based on the difference in diameter between vascular and valve prosthesis, we arbitrarily classified the patients into two groups: a small group (S) (n = 52), in which the difference was ≤ 5 mm, and a large group (L) (n = 34), in which the difference was > 5 mm. Significant AR enlargement was observed in 30.8 % of the S group and 14.7 % of the L group (log-rank = 0.026). A difference of more than 5 mm between the aortic valve prosthesis and the vascular prosthesis protected against AR enlargement in the long-term FU (OR 12.31, P = 0.033), even after adjusting for age and sex (OR 00.32, P = 0.043). CONCLUSION: According to our findings, a difference between the size of the aortic valve prosthesis and the vascular prosthesis of less than or equal to 5 mm was the only factor that increased the risk of AR enlargement after AVS+AAR in long-term FU.

Mortality in trials on transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-estimated individual patient data was designed to evaluate the effects of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) on the long-term all-cause mortality rate, to examine the potential time-varying effect and to model their hazard ratios (HRs) over time. Moreover, we sought to compare traditional meta-analytic tools and estimated individual patient data meta-analyses. METHODS: Trials comparing TAVI versus SAVR were identified through Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases and specialist websites. The primary outcome was death from any cause at follow-up. Enhanced secondary analyses of survival curves were performed estimating individual patient time-to-event data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Treatments were compared with the random effect Cox model in a landmark framework and fully parametric models. RESULTS: We identified 6 eligible trials that included 6367 participants, randomly assigned to undergo TAVI (3252) or SAVR (3115). According to the landmark analysis, the incidence of death in the first year after implantation was significantly lower in the TAVI group [risk-profile stratified HR 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.99; P = 0.04], whereas there was a reversal of the HR after 40 months (risk-profile stratified HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.68; P = 0.04) favouring SAVR over TAVI. This time-varying trend of HRs was also confirmed by a fully parametric time-to-event model. Traditional meta-analytic tools were shown to be biased because they did not intercept heterogeneity and the time-varying effect. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rates in trials of TAVI versus SAVR are affected by treatments with a time-varying effect. TAVI is related to better survival in the first months after implantation whereas, after 40 months, it is a risk factor for all-cause mortality.