Mechanical versus Biological Valve Prostheses for Infective Endocarditis Presenting with Stroke.

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mechanical and biological valve prostheses in patients with infective endocarditis presenting with stroke. Ninety-five adults with infective endocarditis complicated by stroke at baseline who underwent aortic and/or mitral valve replacement were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and re-endocarditis. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the composite outcome and modified Rankin scale deterioration during follow-up. Among the study cohort, 34 patients (35.8%) received mechanical valve prostheses and 61 (64.2%) received biological valve prostheses. Implantation of a mechanical valve prosthesis seems to be associated with a decreased risk of attaining the composite outcome (adjusted HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96, and = 0.037). Analyses of the individual components of the composite outcome showed that implantation of a mechanical valve prosthesis might not be associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and all-cause mortality during the follow-up period. Further, the risk of re-endocarditis was significantly lower in recipients of a mechanical valve prosthesis (adjusted HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.77, = 0.026). Notably, a trend toward decreased risk of modified Rankin scale deterioration throughout the follow-up period was observed in this group (adjusted odds ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1.02, = 0.053). Implantation of mechanical valve prostheses in patients presenting with infective endocarditis complicated by stroke seems to be beneficial in terms of a reduced risk of experiencing a composite outcome. Analyses of larger cohorts are required to validate our findings.