6 research outputs found

    One-year outcome following biological or mechanical valve replacement for infective endocarditis

    Get PDF
    Background: Nearly half of patients require cardiac surgery during the acute phase of infective endocarditis (IE). We describe the characteristics of patients according to the type of valve replacement (mechanical or biological), and examine whether the type of prosthesis was associated with in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Methods and results: Among 5591 patients included in the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Prospective Cohort Study, 1467 patients with definite IE were operated on during the active phase and had a biological (37%) or mechanical (63%) valve replacement. Patients who received bioprostheses were older (62 vs 54 years), more often had a history of cancer (9% vs 6%), and had moderate or severe renal disease (9% vs 4%); proportion of health care-associated IE was higher (26% vs 17%); intracardiac abscesses were more frequent (30% vs 23%). In-hospital and 1-year death rates were higher in the bioprosthesis group, 20.5% vs 14.0% (p = 0.0009) and 25.3% vs 16.6% (p < .0001), respectively. In multivariable analysis, mechanical prostheses were less commonly implanted in older patients (odds ratio: 0.64 for every 10 years), and in patients with a history of cancer (0.72), but were more commonly implanted in mitral position (1.60). Bioprosthesis was independently associated with 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 1.298). Conclusions: Patients with IE who receive a biological valve replacement have significant differences in clinical characteristics compared to patients who receive a mechanical prosthesis. Biological valve replacement is independently associated with a higher in-hospital and 1-year mortality, a result which is possibly related to patient characteristics rather than valve dysfunction

    Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Treatment vs Hospitalization for Infective Endocarditis: Validation of the OPAT-GAMES Criteria

    Get PDF

    Implementation of massive sequencing in the genetic diagnosis of hereditary cancer syndromes: diagnostic performance in the Hereditary Cancer Programme of the Valencia Community (FamCan-NGS)

    No full text
    Abstract Background Approximately 5 to 10% of all cancers are caused by inherited germline mutations, many of which are associated with different Hereditary Cancer Syndromes (HCS). In the context of the Program of Hereditary Cancer of the Valencia Community, individuals belonging to specific HCS and their families receive genetic counselling and genetic testing according to internationally established guidelines. The current diagnostic approach is based on sequencing a few high-risk genes related to each HCS; however, this method is time-consuming, expensive and does not achieve a confirmatory genetic diagnosis in many cases. This study aims to test the level of improvement offered by a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) gene-panel compared to the standard approach in a diagnostic reference laboratory setting. Methods A multi-gene NGS panel was used to test a total of 91 probands, previously classified as non-informative by analysing the high-risk genes defined in our guidelines. Results Nineteen deleterious mutations were detected in 16% of patients, some mutations were found in already-tested high-risk genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH2) and others in non-prevalent genes (RAD51D, PALB2, ATM, TP53, MUTYH, BRIP1). Conclusions Overall, our findings reclassify several index cases into different HCS, and change the mutational status of 14 cases from non-informative to gene mutation carriers. In conclusion, we highlight the necessity of incorporating validated multi-gene NGS panels into the HCSs diagnostic routine to increase the performance of genetic diagnosis

    One-year outcome following biological or mechanical valve replacement for infective endocarditis

    No full text
    Background: Nearly half of patients require cardiac surgery during the acute phase of infective endocarditis (IE). We describe the characteristics of patients according to the type of valve replacement (mechanical or biological), and examine whether the type of prosthesis was associated with in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Methods and results: Among 5591 patients included in the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Prospective Cohort Study, 1467 patients with definite IE were operated on during the active phase and had a biological (37%) or mechanical (63%) valve replacement. Patients who received bioprostheses were older (62 vs 54 years), more often had a history of cancer (9% vs 6%), and had moderate or severe renal disease (9% vs 4%); proportion of health care-associated IE was higher (26% vs 17%); intracardiac abscesses were more frequent (30% vs 23%). In-hospital and 1-year death rates were higher in the bioprosthesis group, 20.5% vs 14.0% (p = 0.0009) and 25.3% vs 16.6% (p < .0001), respectively. In multivariable analysis, mechanical prostheses were less commonly implanted in older patients (odds ratio: 0.64 for every 10 years), and in patients with a history of cancer (0.72), but were more commonly implanted in mitral position (1.60). Bioprosthesis was independently associated with 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 1.298). Conclusions: Patients with IE who receive a biological valve replacement have significant differences in clinical characteristics compared to patients who receive a mechanical prosthesis. Biological valve replacement is independently associated with a higher in-hospital and 1-year mortality, a result which is possibly related to patient characteristics rather than valve dysfunction
    corecore