4.5 Article

Excess mortality and morbidity in patients surviving infective endocarditis

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 164, 期 1, 页码 94-101

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.04.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Mortality and morbidity associated with infective endocarditis may extend beyond successful treatment. The primary objective was to analyze rates, temporal changes, and predictors of excess mortality in patients surviving the acute phase of endocarditis. The secondary objective was to determine the rate of recurrence and the need for late cardiac surgery. Methods An observational cohort study was conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary medical center, among 328 patients who survived the active phase of endocarditis. We used age-, sex-, and calendar year-specific mortality hazard rates of the Bouches-du-Rhone French district population to calculate expected survival and excess mortality. The risk of recurrence and late valve surgery was also assessed. Result Compared with expected survival, patients surviving a first episode of endocarditis had significantly worse outcomes (P = .001). The relative survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 92% (95% CI, 88%-95%), 86% (95% CI, 77%-92%), and 82% (95% CI, 59%-91%), respectively. This excess mortality was observed during the entire follow-up period but was the highest during the first year after hospital discharge. Most of the recurrences and late cardiac surgeries also occurred during this period. Women exhibited a higher risk of age-adjusted excess mortality (adjusted excess hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.05-3.82; P = .03). Comorbidity index, recurrence of endocarditis, and history of an aortic valve endocarditis in women were independent predictors of excess mortality. Conclusions These results justify close monitoring of patients after successful treatment of endocarditis, at least during the first year. Special attention should be paid to women with aortic valve damage. (Am Heart J 2012;164:94-101.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据