Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Surgical treatment of infective mitral valve endocarditis


Wilhelm, M J; Tavakoli, R; Schneeberger, K; Hoerstrup, S P; Reuthebuch, O; Seifert, Burkhardt; Turina, M; Genoni, M (2004). Surgical treatment of infective mitral valve endocarditis. Journal of Heart Valve Disease, 13(5):754-759.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The approach to mitral valve endocarditis is a surgical challenge, and the optimal procedure remains a matter of debate. In this condition, mitral valve repair appears feasible, but its long-term effects--as opposed to more often practiced valve replacement--have not yet been determined. Herein, the authors' experience of surgical treatment of infective mitral valve endocarditis is presented, with reference to surgical replacement or reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients with infective native mitral valve endocarditis treated surgically at the University Hospital Zurich and the City Hospital Triemli Zurich between 1980 and 1996. Of 154 patients, 97 (63%) underwent mitral valve replacement, and 57 (37%) mitral valve reconstruction. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 3.2% (5/154); 4% (4/97) after replacement and 1.7% (1/57) after reconstruction (p = 0.67). Survival (Kaplan-Meier) was 93%, 81% and 61% after one, five and 10 years, respectively. There was no significant difference between valve replacement and reconstruction in terms of long-term survival (p = 0.15), but there was a trend towards better survival after reconstruction than replacement if only cardiac deaths were considered (p = 0.1). At follow up, reconstruction patients were significantly less frequently symptomatic (NYHA class III/IV) than replacement patients (0% versus 29%; p = 0.002), had a lower incidence of atrial fibrillation and need for pacemaker implantation (29% versus 47%; p = 0.04), and tended to have less dyspnea in daily life (20% versus 38%; p = 0.07). Reoperation in patients surviving more than 30 days was more common in replacement than in reconstruction patients. CONCLUSION: The present data suggest a trend for better clinical outcome after mitral valve reconstruction than after replacement when treating mitral valve endocarditis. These results encourage mitral valve reconstruction in mitral valve endocarditis, but recommendations to clinicians undertaking surgery on mitral valve endocarditis must be made with caution.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The approach to mitral valve endocarditis is a surgical challenge, and the optimal procedure remains a matter of debate. In this condition, mitral valve repair appears feasible, but its long-term effects--as opposed to more often practiced valve replacement--have not yet been determined. Herein, the authors' experience of surgical treatment of infective mitral valve endocarditis is presented, with reference to surgical replacement or reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients with infective native mitral valve endocarditis treated surgically at the University Hospital Zurich and the City Hospital Triemli Zurich between 1980 and 1996. Of 154 patients, 97 (63%) underwent mitral valve replacement, and 57 (37%) mitral valve reconstruction. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 3.2% (5/154); 4% (4/97) after replacement and 1.7% (1/57) after reconstruction (p = 0.67). Survival (Kaplan-Meier) was 93%, 81% and 61% after one, five and 10 years, respectively. There was no significant difference between valve replacement and reconstruction in terms of long-term survival (p = 0.15), but there was a trend towards better survival after reconstruction than replacement if only cardiac deaths were considered (p = 0.1). At follow up, reconstruction patients were significantly less frequently symptomatic (NYHA class III/IV) than replacement patients (0% versus 29%; p = 0.002), had a lower incidence of atrial fibrillation and need for pacemaker implantation (29% versus 47%; p = 0.04), and tended to have less dyspnea in daily life (20% versus 38%; p = 0.07). Reoperation in patients surviving more than 30 days was more common in replacement than in reconstruction patients. CONCLUSION: The present data suggest a trend for better clinical outcome after mitral valve reconstruction than after replacement when treating mitral valve endocarditis. These results encourage mitral valve reconstruction in mitral valve endocarditis, but recommendations to clinicians undertaking surgery on mitral valve endocarditis must be made with caution.

Statistics

Citations

11 citations in Web of Science®
19 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 15 Jun 2009
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2004
Deposited On:15 Jun 2009 16:39
Last Modified:06 Dec 2017 19:59
Publisher:ICR Publishers
ISSN:0966-8519
PubMed ID:15473475

Download