4.5 Article

Heart failure in left-sided native valve infective endocarditis: characteristics, prognosis, and results of surgical treatment

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 668-675

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfp077

关键词

Infective endocarditis; Heart failure; Prognosis; Early surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although congestive heart failure (CHF) represents the most common cause of death in native valve infective endocarditis (IE), recent data on the outcome of IE complicated by CHF are lacking. We aimed to analyse the characteristics and prognosis of patients with left-sided native valve IE complicated by CHF and to evaluate the impact of early surgery on 1 year outcome. Two hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients with definite left-sided native valve IE according to the Duke criteria were included in this analysis. When compared with patients without CHF (n = 151), new heart murmur, high comorbidity index, aortic valve IE, and severe valve regurgitation were more frequently observed in CHF patients (n = 108, 41.6%). Mitral valve IE, embolic events and neurological events were less frequent in CHF patients. Congestive heart failure was independently predictive of in-hospital [OR 3.8 (1.7-9.0); P = 0.0013] and 1 year mortality [HR 1.8 (1.1-3.0); P = 0.007]. Early surgery was performed in 46% of CHF patients with a peri-operative mortality of 10%. In the CHF group, comorbidity index, Staphylococcus aureus IE, uncontrolled infection, and major neurological events were univariate predictors of 1 year mortality. Early surgery was independently associated with improved 1 year survival [HR 0.45 (0.22-0.93); P = 0.03]. Left-sided native valve IE complicated by CHF is more frequent in aortic IE and is associated with severe regurgitation. Congestive heart failure is an independent predictor of in-hospital and 1 year mortality. In CHF patients, early surgery is independently associated with reduced mortality and should be widely considered to improve outcome.

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