Panagides V, Cuervo G, Llopis J, Abdel-Wahab M, Mangner N, Habib G, Regueiro A, Mestres CA, Tornos P, Durand E, Selton-Suty C, Ihlemann N, Bruun N, Urena M, Cecchi E, Thiele H, Durante-Mangoni E, Pellegrini C, Eltchaninoff H, Athan E, Søndergaard L, Linke A, Tattevin P, Del Val D, Quintana E, Chu V, Rodés-Cabau J, and Miro JM
Background: Scarce data are available comparing infective endocarditis (IE) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical presentation, microbiological profile, management, and outcomes of IE after SAVR versus TAVR., Methods: Data were collected from the "Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International" (enrollment from 2005 to 2020) and the "International Collaboration on Endocarditis" (enrollment from 2000 to 2012) registries. Only patients with an IE affecting the aortic valve prosthesis were included. A 1:1 paired matching approach was used to compare patients with TAVR and SAVR., Results: A total of 1688 patients were included. Of them, 602 (35.7%) had a surgical bioprosthesis (SB), 666 (39.5%) a mechanical prosthesis, 70 (4.2%) a homograft, and 350 (20.7%) a transcatheter heart valve. In the SAVR versus TAVR matched population, the rate of new moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was higher in the SB group (43.4% vs 13.5%; P < .001), and fewer vegetations were diagnosed in the SB group (62.5% vs 82%; P < .001). Patients with an SB had a higher rate of perivalvular extension (47.9% vs 27%; P < .001) and Staphylococcus aureus was less common in this group (13.4% vs 22%; P = .033). Despite a higher rate of surgery in patients with SB (44.4% vs 27.3%; P < .001), 1-year mortality was similar (SB: 46.5%; TAVR: 44.8%; log-rank P = .697)., Conclusions: Clinical presentation, type of causative microorganism, and treatment differed between patients with an IE located on SB compared with TAVR. Despite these differences, both groups exhibited high and similar mortality at 1-year follow-up., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. R.-C. has received institutional research grants, consulting fees, and honoraria for speaking engagements from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. V. P. has received received institutional research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport. J. M. M. has received consulting honoraria and/or research grants from Angelini, Contrafect, Cubist, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Lysovant, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. N. B. has received institutional research grants from The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Augustinus Foundation, The Kaj Hansen Foundation, and Health Insurance Denmark, outside the submitted work. N. M. has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. G. C. reports travel support from Angelini Pharma Spain to attend national and international scientific conferences. E. D.-M. reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Angelini, Shionogi, Advanz Pharma, and Infectopharm; consulting fees from Roche, Genentech, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for speaking engagements from Pfizer, Angelini, and Shionogi; and travel support from Biotest. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)