Cardiothoracic Surgery Department, Tanta University, Tanta, Gharbeya, Egypt; Cullen Cardiovascular Surgery Research, Texas Heart Institute, Houston, TX, USA.
Cardiothoracic Surgery Department, Tanta University, Tanta, Gharbeya, Egypt.
Heart Lung Circ. 2019 Jul;28(7):1112-1120. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2018.05.200. Epub 2018 Jun 20.
The optimal aortic substitute in extensive aortic valve active infective endocarditis (AIE) continues to be debated. To determine the surgical approach in aortic valve AIE with infection extension beyond the leaflets, we evaluated the outcome of reconstructive surgery with various valve substitutes in those patients.
During 2000-2013, 168 patients had surgery for extensive aortic valve AIE. Patients were categorised based on aortic valve substitute: Group A: Stented aortic valve replacement (AVR), Group B: Stented AVR with patch support, Group C: Stentless valve, Group D: Aortic allograft, and Group E: Composite valve graft. Outcome parameters were mortality, postoperative cardiogenic or septic shock, stroke, or reinfection.
Stented valves with patch support were more frequently utilised in cases of native valve endocarditis (p<0.001). Postoperative complications were comparable among groups. Concomitant preoperative extension of infection in the mitral valve predicted reinfection (OR 3.6; confidence interval 1.46-8.66; p=0.005). Survival was not affected by operative group (log rank=0.6). Univariable preoperative predictors of mortality were: septic shock (hazard ratio 8.3; 95% confidence interval 3.6-19.2; p<0.001), ejection fraction (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.99; p=0.006), preoperative cardiogenic shock (hazard ratio 1.9; 95%CI 1.1-3.6, p=0.02) and concomitant mitral valve surgery (hazard ratio 1.8; 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.5; p=0.002).
Surgical treatment of extensive aortic valve infective endocarditis remains a challenge. Outcomes were not affected by the surgical complexity of aortic reconstruction procedure or valve substitute. Surgical approach should be tailored to individual patient's characteristics.
在广泛主动脉瓣活性感染性心内膜炎(AIE)中,哪种主动脉替代物最佳仍存在争议。为了确定感染已超出瓣叶的主动脉瓣 AIE 的手术方法,我们评估了使用各种瓣膜替代物进行手术的患者的结局。
在 2000 年至 2013 年间,有 168 例患者因广泛的主动脉瓣 AIE 而接受手术。根据主动脉瓣替代物将患者分为以下几组:A 组:带支架主动脉瓣置换术(AVR),B 组:带支架 AVR 加补片支撑,C 组:无支架瓣膜,D 组:主动脉同种异体移植物,E 组:复合瓣膜移植物。观察终点为死亡率、术后心源性或败血症性休克、卒中和再感染。
在原发性心内膜炎患者中,更常使用带支架瓣膜加补片支撑(p<0.001)。各组之间的术后并发症相当。术前二尖瓣感染的合并延伸可预测再感染(OR 3.6;95%置信区间 1.46-8.66;p=0.005)。手术组对生存率无影响(对数秩检验=0.6)。术前死亡的单变量预测因素包括:败血症性休克(风险比 8.3;95%置信区间 3.6-19.2;p<0.001)、射血分数(风险比 0.96;95%置信区间 0.93-0.99;p=0.006)、术前心源性休克(风险比 1.9;95%置信区间 1.1-3.6,p=0.02)和同期二尖瓣手术(风险比 1.8;95%置信区间 1.2-2.5;p=0.002)。
广泛主动脉瓣感染性心内膜炎的手术治疗仍然是一个挑战。手术结果不受主动脉重建手术复杂性或瓣膜替代物的影响。手术方法应根据患者的个体特征量身定制。