Long-Term Outcome of Infective Endocarditis Involving Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Impact of Comorbidities and Lead Extraction.

(1) Background: Management of cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis (CIED-IE) hinges on complete hardware removal. We assessed whether long-term prognosis is affected by device removal, considering baseline patient comorbid conditions; (2) Methods: A total of 125 consecutive patients hospitalized for CIED-IE were included in this retrospective analysis. Outcomes were in-hospital, one-year, and long-term mortality. There were 109 patients who underwent device removal, 91 by transvenous lead extraction (TLE) and 18 by open heart surgery (OHS); (3) Results: TLE translated into lower hospital mortality (4.4% vs. 22.5% with OHS; p = 0.03). Septic pulmonary embolism was the only independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR:7.38 [1.49-36.6], p = 0.013). One-year mortality was in contrast independently associated to tricuspid valve involvement (p = 0.01) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, p = 0.039), but not the hardware removal modality. After a median follow-up of 41 months, mortality rose to 24%, and was significantly influenced only by CCI. Specifically, patients with a higher CCI who were also treated with TLE showed a survival rate not significantly different from those managed with medical therapy only; (4) Conclusions: In CIED-IE, TLE is the strategy of choice for hardware removal, improving early outcomes. Long-term benefits of TLE are lessened by comorbidities. In cases of CIED-IE with high CCI, a more conservative approach might be an option.

Can prosthesis type influence the recurrence of infective endocarditis after surgery for native valve endocarditis? A propensity weighted comparison.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to investigate whether the incidence of valve-related adverse events might be different depending on the valve substitute after valve replacement for left-sided native valve endocarditis. METHODS: We assessed the long-term freedom from recurrence, reoperation and survival of 395 patients who had valve replacements for native valve endocarditis (314 mechanical vs 81 biological). Age <18 years, reoperation, prosthetic endocarditis, right valve involvement, valve repair and homograft implants were the main exclusion criteria. The balance between the 2 groups was addressed by weighting the results on the inverse of the propensity score. RESULTS: After inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), freedom from recurrence of infective endocarditis was not significantly different (mechanical 84.1 ± 3.2% vs 50.6 ± 21.7%; P = 0.29) nor was freedom from reoperation different (mechanical 85.7 ± 3.1% vs biological 50.9 ± 21.9%; P = 0.29). Excluding competing deaths, patients receiving a bioprosthesis had a similar subdistribution hazard of the above end points compared to recipients of a mechanical valve [recurrence IPTW: hazard ratio (HR) 1.631, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.756-3.516; P = 0.21; reoperation IPTW-HR 1.737, 95% CI 0.780-3.870; P = 0.18]. Mechanical valves were associated with improved long-term survival (34.9 ± 5.8% vs 10.5 ± 7.4% at 30 years; P = 0.0009; in particular: aortic valve subgroup 41.6 ± 9.3% vs 10.1 ± 8.2%; P < 0.0001), although the hazard of cardiovascular mortality did not favour either valve type (IPTW: HR 1.361, 95% CI 0.771-2.404; P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed a clinical trend in favour of mechanical valves as valve substitutes for native valve endocarditis, especially in the aortic position. In view of long-term freedom from adverse events, the choice of the valve type should be tailored according to patient characteristics and specific clinical conditions.

Safety of low intensity oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with bileaflet mechanical aortic valve prosthesis: A propensity weighted study.

BACKGROUND: Scarce data are available on the long-term outcomes of different regimens of oral anticoagulation in an all comer population of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a bileaflet mechanical heart valve. METHODS: Outcomes of 88 patients discharged with a target INR of 2.0 (LOW-INR) were compared to 147 contemporary patients who have been recommended a target INR of 2.5 (CONV). Primary outcome was the composite of any thromboembolic or haemorrhagic events. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of the primary outcome, cardiovascular mortality and stroke. To reduce selection bias, a propensity weighted analysis was performed. RESULTS: After inverse probability of treatment weighting, the primary endpoint occurred in 0.7% of patient in the LOW-INR group and in 7.0% in the CONV group (p = .0255). Linearized event rate were significantly lower in the LOW-INR group (primary endpoint: rate difference - 12.0 per 1000 patient/years, p = .0052; haemorrhage: -5.8 per 1000 patient/years, p = .0330; neurological events: -7.6 per 1000 patient/years, p = .0140). Conventional target INR was associated with an increased hazard of the composite endpoint (HR 11.193, 95% CI 1.424-88.003, p = .0217). CONCLUSIONS: Lowering the intensity of oral anticoagulation resulted in a relevant clinical benefit of reduced rates of haemorrhagic and neurological adverse events in the mid-term follow-up. This report confirms the safety profile of the low INR regimen in an all comer population undergoing aortic valve replacement with an Abbott mechanical valve.

Risk and outcomes of aortic valve endocarditis among patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with structural abnormalities of cardiac valves, including bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), are said to be at higher risk of infective endocarditis (IE). We sought to determine the risk of IE of the BAV compared with the tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) and to determine the risk of aortic valve replacement and mortality after IE. METHODS: From medical records of two US and one Italian hospitals, patients with their first episode of IE of any native valve were identified. In the US cohort 42 patients with BAV and 393 patients with TAV with IE occurring between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2014 were identified. In the Italian cohort 48 patients with BAV and 341 patients with TAV with IE underwent valve replacement surgery between 1 January 2000 and1 November 2015. The risk of IE for BAV and TAV and subsequent outcomes were determined after matching to patients without IE. RESULTS: After adjustment for risk factors, the risk of IE in the US cohort was 23.1 (95% CI 8.1 to 100, p <0.0001) times greater for BAV than TAV. Patients with BAV with IE were more likely to have an aortic root abscess. Within the subsequent 5 years, BAV patients with IE were more likely to undergo valve replacement (85%) than TAV patients with IE (46%). Patients with IE were at increased risk of death. The findings were similar in the Italian cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BAV are at markedly increased risk of IE and aortic root abscess than patients with TAV. Increased risk of IE in patients with BAV indicates they may be a candidate group for long-term trials of antibiotic prophylaxis of IE.

The need for a specific risk prediction system in native valve infective endocarditis surgery.

The need for a specific risk score system for infective endocarditis (IE) surgery has been previously claimed. In a single-center pilot study, preliminary to future multicentric development and validation, bivariate and multivariate (logistic regression) analysis of early postoperative mortality predictors in 440 native valve IE patients were performed. Mathematical procedures assigned scores to the independent predictors emerged (AUC of the ROC curve: 0.88). Overall mortality was 9.1%. Six predictors were identified and assigned scores, including age (5-13 points), renal failure (5), NYHA class IV (9), critical preoperative state (11), lack of preoperative attainment of blood culture negativity (5), perivalvular involvement (5). Four risk classes were drawn ranging from "very low risk" (≤5 points, mean predicted mortality 1%), and to "very high risk" (≥20 points, 43% mortality). IE-specific risk stratification models are both needed, as disease-specific factors (e.g., cultures, abscess), beside the generic ones (e.g., age, renal impairment) affect mortality, and feasible.