Aortic Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: Analysis of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database

Background: This study sought to characterize the current US experience of aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) compared with native valve endocarditis (NVE). Methods: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database was queried for entries of active aortic infective endocarditis (IE). Two analyses were performed: (1) trends of surgical volume and operative mortality (2011-2019); and (2) descriptive and risk-adjusted comparisons between PVE and NVE (2014-2019) using multivariable logistic regression. Results: From 2011 to 2019, there was a yearly increase in the proportion of PVE (20.9% to 25.9%; P <.001) with a concurrent decrease in operative mortality (PVE, 22.5% to 10.4%; P <.001; NVE, 10.9% to 8.5%; P <.001). From 2014 to 2019, active aortic IE was identified in 9768 patients (NVE, 6842; PVE, 2926). Aortic root abscess (50.1% vs 25.2%; P <.001), aortic root replacement (50.1% vs 12.8%; P <.001), homograft implantation (27.2% vs 4.1%; P <.001), and operative mortality (12.2% vs 6.4%; P <.001) were higher in PVE. After risk adjustment, PVE (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% CI,1.16-1.94; P <.01), aortic root replacement (OR, 1.49; 95% CI,1.15-1.92; P <.001), Staphylococcus aureus (OR, 1.5; 95% CI,1.23-1.82; P <.001), and unplanned revascularization (OR, 5.83; 95% CI,4.12-8.23; P <.001) or mitral valve surgery (OR, 2.29; 95% CI,1.5-3.51; P <.001) correlated with a higher operative mortality, whereas prosthesis type (P =.68) was not an independent predictor. Conclusions: IE in the United States has risen over the past decade. However, operative mortality has decreased for both PVE and NVE. PVE, extension of IE requiring aortic root replacement, and additional unplanned surgical interventions carry an elevated mortality risk. Prosthesis selection did not affect operative mortality.12 month embargo; published: 04 December 2021This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Patient Risk–Benefit Preferences for Transcatheter Versus Surgical Mitral Valve Repair

Background Transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair (TEER) of mitral regurgitation is less invasive than surgery but has greater 5‐year mortality and reintervention risks, and leads to smaller improvements in physical functioning. The study objective was to quantify patient preferences for risk–benefit trade‐offs associated with TEER and surgery. Methods and Results A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to patients with mitral regurgitation. Attributes included procedure type; 30‐day mortality risk; 5‐year mortality risk and physical functioning for 5 years; number of hospitalizations in the next 5 years; and risk of additional surgery in the next 5 years. A mixed‐logit regression model was fit to estimate preference weights. Two hundred one individuals completed the survey: 63% were female and mean age was 74 years. On average, respondents preferred TEER over surgery. To undergo a less invasive procedure (ie, TEER), respondents would accept up to a 13.3% (95% CI, 8.7%–18.5%) increase in reintervention risk above a baseline of 10%, 4.6 (95% CI, 3.1–6.2) more hospitalizations above a baseline of 1, a 10.7% (95% CI, 6.5%–14.5%) increase in 5‐year mortality risk above a baseline of 20%, or more limited physical functioning representing nearly 1 New York Heart Association class (0.7 [95% CI, 0.4–1.1]) over 5 years. Conclusions Patients in general preferred TEER over surgery. When holding constant all other factors, a functional improvement from New York Heart Association class III to class I maintained over 5 years would be needed, on average, for patients to prefer surgery over TEER

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline

¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and Radiolabeled Leukocyte SPECT/CT Imaging for the Evaluation of Cardiovascular Infection in the Multimodality Context:ASNC Imaging Indications (ASNC I²) Series Expert Consensus Recommendations From ASNC, AATS, ACC, AHA, ASE, EANM, HRS, IDSA, SCCT, SNMMI, and STS

This document on cardiovascular infection, including infective endocarditis, is the first in the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Imaging Indications (ASNC I2) series to assess the role of radionuclide imaging in the multimodality context for the evaluation of complex systemic diseases with multisocietal involvement including pertinent disciplines. A rigorous modified Delphi approach was used to determine consensus clinical indications, diagnostic criteria, and an algorithmic approach to diagnosis of cardiovascular infection including infective endocarditis. Cardiovascular infection incidence is increasing and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Current strategies based on clinical criteria and an initial echocardiographic imaging approach are effective but often insufficient in complicated cardiovascular infection. Radionuclide imaging with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) and single photon emission computed tomography/CT leukocyte scintigraphy can enhance the evaluation of suspected cardiovascular infection by increasing diagnostic accuracy, identifying extracardiac involvement, and assessing cardiac implanted device pockets, leads, and all portions of ventricular assist devices. This advanced imaging can aid in key medical and surgical considerations. Consensus diagnostic features include focal/multifocal or diffuse heterogenous intense 18F-FDG uptake on valvular and prosthetic material, perivalvular areas, device pockets and leads, and ventricular assist device hardware persisting on non-attenuation corrected images. There are numerous clinical indications with a larger role in prosthetic valves, and cardiac devices particularly with possible infective endocarditis or in the setting of prior equivocal or non-diagnostic imaging. Illustrative cases incorporating these consensus recommendations provide additional clarification. Future research is necessary to refine application of these advanced imaging tools for surgical planning, to identify treatment response, and more.</p