4.6 Article

Early onset prosthetic valve endocarditis: The Cleveland Clinic experience 1992-1997

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 69, Issue 5, Pages 1388-1392

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(00)01135-8

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. We reviewed all cases of early onset prosthetic valve endocarditis (EO-PVE) occurring less than 12 months after valve operation among 7,043 patients undergoing heart valve replacements or repairs at The Cleveland Clinic between 1992 and 1997. Methods. Cases were defined by the Duke criteria and identified through prospective surveillance. Results. Seventy-seven cases of EO-PVE were identified (1 per 100 procedures), and during the study period the incidence of EO-PVE decreased from 1.5% (1992 to 1994) to 0.7% (1995 to 1997) (p < 0.01). The incidence of EO-PVE for rings (0.2%; 4 of 1,992) was significantly lower than for mechanical (1.6%; 28 of 1,731) and bioprosthetic valves (1.1%; 41 of 3,320) (p < 0.001). The incidence of EO-PVE was also significantly lower for mitral valve versus aortic valve surgeries (0.6% versus 1.4%, p < 0.001). The most common pathogens causing EO-PVE were coagulase-negative staphylococci (52%), fungi (13%), Staphylococcus aureus (10%), and enterococci (8%). Patients undergoing combined surgical and medical treatment of EO-PVE had a significantly higher 30-day, 2-year, and 3-year survival than medically treated patients, although patients judged to be too ill to survive surgery accounted for two-thirds of the patients treated medically. Conclusions. There is a 1% incidence rate of EO-PVE among patients undergoing valve operations at our institution, usually caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci, and combined surgical and medical treatment is associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment alone. (C) 2000 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available