4.6 Article

Current Outcomes for Tricuspid Valve Infective Endocarditis Surgery in North America

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 96, 期 4, 页码 1374-1381

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.05.046

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Tricuspid valve (TV) infective endocarditis (IE) accounts for 15% of IE cases and usually is treated medically. Surgical intervention is rare, and understanding of treatment options is based on small series of patients. The purpose of this study was to describe the population and outcomes for isolated TV IE using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Database. Methods. Between 2002 and 2009, 910 operations for TV IE were performed. Procedures included replacement, repair, and valvectomy. Healed IE was present in 31.4% (n = 286), and active IE, in 68.5% (n = 624). Baseline patient characteristics as well as operative mortality and morbidity were analyzed, and univariate statistical differences were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis test and stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel chi(2) tests. Results. The median age was 40 years, with 50.6% male. Replacement of the TV was the most common procedure (n = 490; 53.8%), followed by TV repair (n = 354; 38.9%) and valvectomy (n = 66; 7.2%). Overall operative mortality was 7.3%, with no significant difference in mortality among valvectomy 12%, repair 7.6%, and replacement 6.3% (p = 0.34). Compared with the active group, healed patients experienced a trend toward lower operative mortality (4.2% versus 8.6%; p = 0.06), lower complication rates (35.6% versus 51.4%; p = 0.0004), and shorter overall length of stay (12 versus 22 days; p < 0.0001). Conclusions. Isolated TV operation for IE is a rare clinical entity with a similar operative mortality to left-sided IE operations. Repair and replacement of the TV had similar perioperative mortality. Patients in the healed TV IE group demonstrated lower complication rates, length of stay, and a trend toward decreased mortality. (c) 2013 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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

4.6
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