Search

Abstract Objective To describe the long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair (MVr) versus mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients with native valve infective endocarditis (IE) at a centre with high-repair rates. Methods We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study. From 2005 to 2021, 183 patients with active or healed native valve IE were included. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Patient status was last confirmed 31 March 2021. Secondary outcomes were post-operative MR, MV reoperation, length of post-operative intensive care stay and total hospital stay. Results 85 patients (46.4%) underwent MVr and 98 (53.6%) underwent MVR. Follow-up was 98.9% complete. Mean follow-up time was 5.3 years with 17% of patients reaching a follow-up time of over 10 years. There were 47 deaths (25.7%) within the follow-up period. MVR patients were more likely to have higher logistic EuroSCORE, active IE and were less likely to have elective surgery. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, there was no significant difference in long-term mortality between MVr and MVR groups (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval [0.59–2.00]). In Kaplan–Meier analysis, MVR patients had a higher all-cause mortality although there was no significant difference at the endpoint. Propensity score matching analysis showed a significantly higher mortality in the replacement group instead (p = 0.002), Subgroup analysis revealed there remained no significant difference in mortality even in patients with active IE (P-interaction = 0.859) or non-elective surgery (P-interaction = 0.122). MV reoperation (odds ratio 1.00 [0.24–4.12]), post-operative intensive care stay (p = 0.9650) and total hospital stay (p = 0.9144) were comparable. Conclusions Our data demonstrates repair was at least non-inferior to replacement in IE, supporting more aggressive use of repair. There is no reason the general principle of why repair is superior to replacement should not hold in IE, with enough operator expertise. Other experienced units should be encouraged to increase repair rates as feasible in line with current guidelines.

Cancer is a heterogeneous disease characterized by various genetic and phenotypic aberrations. Cancer cells undergo genetic modifications that promote their proliferation, survival, and dissemination as the disease progresses. The unabated proliferation of cancer cells incurs an enormous energy demand that is supplied by metabolic reprogramming. Cancer cells undergo metabolic alterations to provide for increased energy and metabolite requirement; these alterations also help drive the tumor progression. Dysregulation in glucose uptake and increased lactate production via “aerobic glycolysis” were described more than 100 years ago, and since then, the metabolic signature of various cancers has been extensively studied. However, the extensive research in this field has failed to translate into significant therapeutic intervention, except for treating childhood-ALL with amino acid metabolism inhibitor L-asparaginase. Despite the growing understanding of novel metabolic alterations in tumors, the therapeutic targeting of these tumor-specific dysregulations has largely been ineffective in clinical trials. This chapter discusses the major pathways involved in the metabolism of glucose, amino acids, and lipids and highlights the inter-twined nature of metabolic aberrations that promote tumorigenesis in different types of cancer. Finally, we summarise the therapeutic interventions which can be used as a combinational therapy to target metabolic dysregulations that are unique or common in blood, breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer.

Traditionally, cardiac and vascular surgeons have been treating diseases of the aorta as individual specialists. Neither cardiac nor vascular surgeons have ever considered the aorta as a whole, which can be diseased throughout its length at the same time requiring a more thoughtful and different approach. Aortic dissection and aneurysmal disease may well benefit from a multidisciplinary approach. In the context of this review, we discuss examples of joint operating between cardiac and vascular surgeons that may well become a more routine approach in more units in the future.