Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Kim, Joon Bum, MD, PhD
• Ejiofor, Julius I., MD
• Yammine, Maroun, MD
• Camuso, Janice M., RN
• Walsh, Conor W., BA
• Ando, Masahiko, MD, PhD
• Melnitchouk, Serguei I., MD
• Rawn, James D., MD
• Leacche, Marzia, MD
• MacGillivray, Thomas E., MD
• Cohn, Lawrence H., MD
• Byrne, John G., MD
• Sundt, Thoralf M., MD

Titel

Are homografts superior to conventional prosthetic valves in the setting of infective endocarditis involving the aortic valve?

Ist Teil von

• The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2016-05, Vol.151 (5), p.1239-1248.e2

Ort / Verlag

United States: Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2016

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Abstract Background Surgical dogma suggests that homografts should be used preferentially, compared with conventional xenograft or mechanical prostheses, in the setting of infective endocarditis (IE), because they have greater resistance to infection. However, comparative data that support this notion are limited. Methods From the prospective databases of 2 tertiary academic centers, we identified 304 consecutive adult patients (age ≥17 years) who underwent surgery for active IE involving the aortic valve (AV), in the period 2002 to 2014. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated using propensity scores and inverse-probability weighting to adjust for selection bias. Results Homografts, and xenograft and mechanical prostheses, were used in 86 (28.3%), 139 (45.7%), and 79 (26.0%) patients, respectively. Homografts were more often used in the setting of prosthetic valve endocarditis (58.1% vs 28.8%, P  = .002) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus (25.6% vs 12.1%, P  = .002), compared with conventional prostheses. Early mortality occurred in 17 (19.8%) in the homograft group, and 20 (9.2%) in the conventional group ( P  = .019). During follow-up (median: 29.4 months; interquartile-range: 4.7-72.6 months), 60 (19.7%) patients died, and 23 (7.7%) experienced reinfection, with no significant differences in survival ( P  = .23) or freedom from reinfection rates ( P  = .65) according to the types of prostheses implanted. After adjustments for baseline characteristics, using propensity-score analyses, use of a homograft did not significantly affect early death (odds ratio 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-3.40, P  = .23), overall death (hazard ratio 1.10; 95% CI, 0.62-1.94, P  = .75), or reinfection (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI, 0.49-2.18, P  = .93). Conclusions No significant benefit to use of homografts was demonstrable with regard to resistance to reinfection in the setting of IE. The choice among prosthetic options should be based on technical and patient-specific factors. Lack of availability of homografts should not impede appropriate surgical intervention.