Redo aortic valve surgery: Influence of prosthetic valve endocarditis on outcomes

Objective Compared with reoperative aortic valve replacement for nonendocarditic causes, the contemporary risk and long-term outcomes of reoperation for aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis are ill-defined. Methods Between December 1994 and April 2008, 313 patients underwent reoperative aortic valve...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery Vol. 142; no. 1; pp. 99 - 105
Main Authors Leontyev, Sergey, MD, Borger, Michael A., MD, PhD, Modi, Paul, MD, FRCS, Lehmann, Sven, MD, Seeburger, Jörg, MD, Walther, Thomas, MD, PhD, Mohr, Friedrich W., MD, PhD
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY Mosby, Inc 01.07.2011
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Objective Compared with reoperative aortic valve replacement for nonendocarditic causes, the contemporary risk and long-term outcomes of reoperation for aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis are ill-defined. Methods Between December 1994 and April 2008, 313 patients underwent reoperative aortic valve replacement, of whom 152 (48.6%) had prosthetic valve endocarditis. Mean follow-up was 6.5 ± 0.4 years and 97.4% complete. Results Patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis were older with a higher risk profile. The overall hospital mortality was 15.3% (n = 48) (prosthetic valve endocarditis vs nonendocarditis: 24.3%, n = 37, vs 6.8%, n = 11; P  < .001). Independent predictors of perioperative mortality for prosthetic valve endocarditis were sepsis (odds ratio [OR], 6.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0–21.0; P  < .01), ejection fraction less than 30% (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3–25.0; P  = .02), concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.1–9.8; P  = .03), and aortic root abscess (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2–6.4; P  = .02), and for the nonendocarditis group were concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (OR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.0–33.0; P  < .01), and mitral valve surgery (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.3–17.9; P  = .02). The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survivals for patients with and without prosthetic valve endocarditis were 52% ± 4% versus 82% ± 3%, 43% ± 5% versus 73% ± 4%, 37% ± 5% versus 63% ± 5%, and 31% ± 7% versus 56% ± 8%, respectively (log rank < 0.001). Predictors of long-term mortality in prosthetic valve endocarditis were sepsis (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5–4.5; P  < .01) and unstable preoperative status (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2–3.5; P  = .04), whereas in nonendocarditis patients the only predictor was New York Heart Association class IV (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.8–7.4; P  < .01). Five-year actuarial freedom from endocarditis was 80% ± 0.3% versus 95% ± 0.6% (prosthetic valve endocarditis cersus nonendocarditis; P  = .002). Conclusions Despite contemporary therapy, reoperation for aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis is still associated with relatively high perioperative mortality and limited long-term survival.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-5223
1097-685X
DOI:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.08.042