Twenty-Year Experience with Surgery for Native and Prosthetic Mitral Valve Endocarditis

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the early and long-term results of surgical treatment of isolated mitral native and prosthetic valve infective endocarditis. Materials and Methods: All patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement for infective endocarditis at our institution between January 2001 and December 2021 were included in the study. The preoperative and postoperative characteristics and mortality of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 130 patients, 85 males and 45 females, with a median age of 61 ± 14 years, underwent surgery for isolated mitral valve endocarditis during the study period. There were 111 (85%) native and 19 (15%) prosthetic valve endocarditis cases. Fifty-one (39%) patients died during the follow-up, and the overall mean patient survival time was 11.8 ± 0.9 years. The mean survival time was better in patients with mitral native valve endocarditis compared to patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (12.3 ± 0.9 years vs. 8 ± 1.4 years; p = 0.1), but the difference was not statistically significant. Patients who underwent mitral valve repair had a better survival rate compared to patients who had mitral valve replacement (14.8 ± 1.6 vs. 11.3 ± 1 years; p = 0.06); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients who underwent mitral valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis had a significantly better survival rate compared to patients who received a biological prosthesis (15.6 ± 1.6 vs. 8.2 ± 0.8 years; p 60 years (17.1 ± 1.1 vs. 8.2 ± 0.9; p 60 years at the time of surgery was an independent risk factor for mortality, while mitral valve repair was a protective factor. Eight (7%) patients required reintervention. Freedom from reintervention was significantly higher in patients with mitral native valve endocarditis compared to patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (19.3 ± 0.5 vs. 11.5 ± 1.7 years; p = 0.04). Conclusions: Surgery for mitral valve endocarditis is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The patient’s age at the time of surgery represents an independent risk factor for mortality. Mitral valve repair should be the preferred choice whenever possible in suitable patients affected by infective endocarditis

The Neuro-Ischaemic Charcot Foot: Prevalence, Characteristics and Severity of Peripheral Arterial Disease in Acute Charcot Neuro-Arthropathy

The study aimed to evaluate the prevalence, characteristics and outcomes of patients affected by Charcot neuro-arthropathy (CN) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) compared to CN without PAD. Consecutive patients presenting with an acute CN were included. The sample size was calculated by the power analysis by adopting the two-tailed tests of the null hypothesis with alfa = 0.05 and a value of beta = 0.10 as the second type error and, therefore, a test power equal to 90%. Seventy-six patients were identified. Twenty-four patients (31.6%) had neuro-ischaemic CN; they were older (66 vs. 57yrs), p = 0.03, had a longer diabetes duration (19 vs. 14yrs), p < 0.001, and more cases of end-stage-renal-disease (12.5 vs. 0%), p = 0.04 and ischaemic heart disease (58.3 vs. 15.4%), p < 0.0001 than neuropathic CN. Fifty patients (65.8%) had concomitant foot ulcers, 62.5% and 67.3% (p = 0.3), respectively, in CN with and without PAD. Neuro-ischaemic CN show arterial lesions of 2.9 vessels, and PAD was located predominantly below-the-knee (75%) but not below-the-ankle (16.7%). The outcomes for neuro-ischaemic and neuropathic CN patients were, respectively: wound healing (86.7 vs. 94.3%), p = 0.08; minor amputation (25 vs. 7.7%), p = 0.003; major amputation (8.3 vs. 1.9%), p = 0.001; hospitalization (75 vs. 23%), p = 0.0001. The study showed a frequent association between CN and PAD, leading to a neuro-ischaemic Charcot foot type. Neuro-ischaemic CN leaded to an increased risk of minor and major amputation and hospitalization, compared to neuropathic CN

Risk Assessment and Pancreatic Cancer: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the deadliest cancers, and it is responsible for a number of deaths almost equal to its incidence. The high mortality rate is correlated with several explanations; the main one is the late disease stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed. Since surgical resection has been recognised as the only curative treatment, a PC diagnosis at the initial stage is believed the main tool to improve survival. Therefore, patient stratification according to familial and genetic risk and the creation of screening protocol by using minimally invasive diagnostic tools would be appropriate. Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are subsets of lesions which deserve special management to avoid overtreatment. The current PC screening programs are based on the annual employment of magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography sequences (MR/MRCP) and/or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). For patients unfit for MRI, computed tomography (CT) could be proposed, although CT results in lower detection rates, compared to MRI, for small lesions. The actual major limit is the incapacity to detect and characterize the pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) by EUS and MR/MRCP. The possibility of utilizing artificial intelligence models to evaluate higher-risk patients could favour the diagnosis of these entities, although more data are needed to support the real utility of these applications in the field of screening. For these motives, it would be appropriate to realize screening programs in research settings