These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Mitral valve repair in infective endocarditis is not inferior to valve replacement: results from a Spanish nationwide prospective registry.
    Author: Cuerpo GP, Valerio M, Pedraz A, Rodríguez-Abella H, Mestres CA, Obrador EQ, González-Calle A, Rodríguez Álvarez R, García PM, Bouza E, GAMEs Study Group.
    Journal: Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2019 Jul; 67(7):585-593. PubMed ID: 30666586.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Infective endocarditis (IE) still carries high morbidity and mortality and frequently requires surgery. The benefit of mitral valve repair (MVr) in the setting of IE is yet to be proven. The goal of this study was to assess the results of MVr in patients with IE after a minimum follow-up of 1 year. METHODS: This study is based on a Spanish nationwide prospective registry that included patients operated on for native mitral valve IE. The collaborating Institutions pooled their pre-, peri-, and postoperative data into the database of the GAMES group [Grupo de Apoyo al Manejo de la EndocarditiS (Group for support and management of infective endocarditis)]. RESULTS: Data from 27 hospitals were recorded and 3524 cases of active IE identified between 2008 and 2016. There were 1513 cases of mitral IE, of which 898 involved native valves. Of these, 437 patients underwent surgical treatment, and 369 completed the 1-year follow-up. The valve was repaired in 68 cases (18.4%). Preoperative groups were comparable (EuroSCORE MVr 7.7 vs MVR 8.0; p = ns). Mortality in the repair group was inferior to that in the replacement group (16.2% vs 27.2%, p = 0.058). At 1 year, mortality remained higher in the replacement group: 3.7% vs 2.9%. Relapse of the infection was slightly more frequent in the repair group (7.1% vs 3.7%; p = ns), although this did not lead to higher rates of reintervention (MVr/MVR: 2.9% vs 4.9%). CONCLUSION: MVr is an attractive option for specific patients with IE and does not seem to negatively impact on relapses.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]