Joon Bum Kim1, Julius I Ejiofor2, Maroun Yammine2, Janice M Camuso3, Conor W Walsh4, Masahiko Ando3, Serguei I Melnitchouk3, James D Rawn2, Marzia Leacche2, Thomas E MacGillivray3, Lawrence H Cohn2, John G Byrne2, Thoralf M Sundt5. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 3. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 4. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass. 5. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: tsundt@partners.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical dogma suggests that homografts should be used preferentially, compared with conventional xenograft or mechanical prostheses, in the setting of infective endocarditis (IE), because they have greater resistance to infection. However, comparative data that support this notion are limited. METHODS: From the prospective databases of 2 tertiary academic centers, we identified 304 consecutive adult patients (age ≥17 years) who underwent surgery for active IE involving the aortic valve (AV), in the period 2002 to 2014. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated using propensity scores and inverse-probability weighting to adjust for selection bias. RESULTS: Homografts, and xenograft and mechanical prostheses, were used in 86 (28.3%), 139 (45.7%), and 79 (26.0%) patients, respectively. Homografts were more often used in the setting of prosthetic valve endocarditis (58.1% vs 28.8%, P = .002) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus (25.6% vs 12.1%, P = .002), compared with conventional prostheses. Early mortality occurred in 17 (19.8%) in the homograft group, and 20 (9.2%) in the conventional group (P = .019). During follow-up (median: 29.4 months; interquartile-range: 4.7-72.6 months), 60 (19.7%) patients died, and 23 (7.7%) experienced reinfection, with no significant differences in survival (P = .23) or freedom from reinfection rates (P = .65) according to the types of prostheses implanted. After adjustments for baseline characteristics, using propensity-score analyses, use of a homograft did not significantly affect early death (odds ratio 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-3.40, P = .23), overall death (hazard ratio 1.10; 95% CI, 0.62-1.94, P = .75), or reinfection (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI, 0.49-2.18, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: No significant benefit to use of homografts was demonstrable with regard to resistance to reinfection in the setting of IE. The choice among prosthetic options should be based on technical and patient-specific factors. Lack of availability of homografts should not impede appropriate surgical intervention.
BACKGROUND: Surgical dogma suggests that homografts should be used preferentially, compared with conventional xenograft or mechanical prostheses, in the setting of infective endocarditis (IE), because they have greater resistance to infection. However, comparative data that support this notion are limited. METHODS: From the prospective databases of 2 tertiary academic centers, we identified 304 consecutive adult patients (age ≥17 years) who underwent surgery for active IE involving the aortic valve (AV), in the period 2002 to 2014. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated using propensity scores and inverse-probability weighting to adjust for selection bias. RESULTS: Homografts, and xenograft and mechanical prostheses, were used in 86 (28.3%), 139 (45.7%), and 79 (26.0%) patients, respectively. Homografts were more often used in the setting of prosthetic valve endocarditis (58.1% vs 28.8%, P = .002) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus (25.6% vs 12.1%, P = .002), compared with conventional prostheses. Early mortality occurred in 17 (19.8%) in the homograft group, and 20 (9.2%) in the conventional group (P = .019). During follow-up (median: 29.4 months; interquartile-range: 4.7-72.6 months), 60 (19.7%) patients died, and 23 (7.7%) experienced reinfection, with no significant differences in survival (P = .23) or freedom from reinfection rates (P = .65) according to the types of prostheses implanted. After adjustments for baseline characteristics, using propensity-score analyses, use of a homograft did not significantly affect early death (odds ratio 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-3.40, P = .23), overall death (hazard ratio 1.10; 95% CI, 0.62-1.94, P = .75), or reinfection (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI, 0.49-2.18, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: No significant benefit to use of homografts was demonstrable with regard to resistance to reinfection in the setting of IE. The choice among prosthetic options should be based on technical and patient-specific factors. Lack of availability of homografts should not impede appropriate surgical intervention.
Authors: Francesco Nappi; Sanjeet Singh Avtaar Singh; Mario Lusini; Antonio Nenna; Ivancarmine Gambardella; Massimo Chello Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-09
Authors: Mahbub Jamil; Ibrahim Sultan; Thomas G Gleason; Forozan Navid; Michael A Fallert; Matthew S Suffoletto; Arman Kilic Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Campbell D Flynn; Neil P Curran; Stephanie Chan; Isabel Zegri-Reiriz; Manel Tauron; David H Tian; Gosta B Pettersson; Joseph S Coselli; Martin Misfeld; Manuel J Antunes; Carlos A Mestres; Eduard Quintana Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2019-11
Authors: Jeffrey Clemence; Juan Caceres; Tom Ren; Xiaoting Wu; Karen M Kim; Himanshu J Patel; G Michael Deeb; Bo Yang Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 6.439
Authors: Jerry Easo; Marcin Szczechowicz; Philipp Hölzl; Adrian Meyer; Konstantin Zhigalov; Rizwan Malik; Rohit Philip Thomas; Alexander Weymann; Otto E Dapunt Journal: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2020-08-01