4.4 Article

Infective Endocarditis: Predictive Factors for Diagnosis and Mortality in Surgically Treated Patients

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcdd9120467

Keywords

infective endocarditis; mortality; valve histopathology; NT-proBNP; ROC analysis; sensitivity; specificity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated diagnostic tools for infective endocarditis and their correlation with mortality outcomes. Positive blood cultures and transesophageal echocardiography were found to be the most sensitive for diagnosing IE, while vegetation size showed high predictive power. Systemic embolism and NT-proBNP levels were associated with mortality.
Background: Diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) often is challenging, and mortality is high in such patients. Our goal was to characterize common diagnostic tools to enable a rapid and accurate diagnosis and to correlate these tools with mortality outcomes. Methods: Because of the possibility of including perioperative diagnostics, only surgically treated patients with suspected left-sided IE were included in this retrospective, monocentric study. A clinical committee confirmed the diagnosis of IE. Results: 201 consecutive patients (age 64 +/- 13 years, 74% male) were finally diagnosed with IE, and 14 patients turned out IE-negative. Preoperative tests with the highest sensitivity for IE were positive blood cultures (89.0%) and transesophageal echocardiography (87.5%). In receiver operating characteristics, vegetation size revealed high predictive power for IE (AUC 0.800, p < 0.001) with an optimal cut-off value of 11.5 mm. Systemic embolism was associated with mortality, and N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) had predictive power for mortality. Conclusion: If diagnostic standard tools remain inconclusive, we suggest employing novel cut-off values to increase diagnostic accuracy and accelerate diagnosis. Patients with embolism or elevated NT-proBNP deserve a closer follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available