Search

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an operative protocol with a multidisciplinary approach on the outcome of patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). A formal policy for the care of PVE was introduced at our hospital in 2003 in which patients were referred to and managed by a preexisting team involving a cardiologist, a specialist in infectious diseases, and a cardiac surgeon. All patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography as soon as clinical suspicion of PVE arose. If high-risk conditions such as heart failure, ring abscess, conditions associated with impending malfunctioning of the prosthesis, or vegetations at high risk for systemic embolization were found during the initial multidisciplinary evaluation (performed within 12 hours of admission), patients were operated on within 48 hours. Stable patients were evaluated weekly by the multidisciplinary team, and on-treatment surgery was performed whenever high-risk conditions developed or when there was persistent fever/bacteremia after 1 week of adequate antibiotic therapy. Comparing the period 2003 through 2009 with 1996 through 2002 (when a multidisciplinary policy was not followed), patients with PVE were more numerous (61 vs 38), older (mean age 68.3 vs 63.1, p = 0.01), and had more co-morbidities (mean Charlson index 3.15 vs 2.42, p = 0.03). The most frequent causative organisms were Staphylococci in both periods. In the second period, fewer patients had delayed diagnosis (39% vs 71%, p = 0.03), heart failure (20% vs 45%, p = 0.01), abscess (20% vs 39%, p = 0.04), culture-negative infective endocarditis (11% vs 29%, p = 0.03), and worsened renal function (21% vs 42%, p = 0.04). A significant reduction in in-hospital mortality (53% to 23%, p = 0.04) and 3-year mortality (60% to 28%, p = 0.001) was observed, driven by the increased number of patients successfully treated with medical therapy alone (44% vs 16%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, formalized, collaborative management led to significant improvement in PVE-related mortality., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Strategies to improve management of patients with native valve endocarditis (NVE) are needed because of persistently high morbidity and mortality. We sought to assess the impact of an operative protocol of multidisciplinary approach on the outcome of patients with NVE. A formal policy for the care of infective endocarditis was introduced at our hospital in 2003 in which patients were referred to and managed by a preexisting team involving a cardiologist, a specialist in infectious diseases, and a cardiac surgeon. The initial multidisciplinary evaluation was performed within 12 hours of admission. Whenever conditions associated with impending hemodynamic impairment, high-risk for systemic embolization, or unsuccessful medical therapy were found, patients were operated on within 48 hours. Stable patients were evaluated weekly by the multidisciplinary team, and on-treatment surgery was performed whenever the above high-risk conditions had developed. Comparing the period 2003 through 2009 with 1996 through 2002 (when a multidisciplinary policy was not followed), patients were more numerous (190 vs 102), older (mean age 59.1 vs 54.2, p = 0.01), and had more co-morbidities (mean Charlson index 3.01 vs 2.31, p = 0.02). The pattern of infection did not change in terms of valve infected or paravalvular complications. In the second period, fewer patients had culture-negative NVE (8% vs 21%, p = 0.01) and worsened renal function (37% vs 58%, p = 0.001). A significant reduction in overall in-hospital mortality (28% to 13%, p = 0.02), mortality for surgery during the active phase (47% to 13%, p ≤0.001), and 3-year mortality (34% vs 16%, p = 0.0007) was observed. In conclusion, formalized, collaborative management led to significant improvement in NVE-related mortality, notwithstanding the less favorable patients' baseline characteristics., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Subtle or discrete (class 3 in the classification of the European Society of Cardiology) dissection is the most neglected variant of aortic dissection. This study was conducted to define the clinical manifestations, diagnostic findings, and outcomes of subtle or discrete dissection involving the ascending aorta. The clinical and surgical records, preoperative studies, and outcomes of 109 consecutive patients with ascending aortic dissection observed from 1995 to 2005 were reviewed. Eight patients (7.3%) had discrete dissection. Five patients presented with acute anterior chest pain, 2 with abdominal pain, and 4 with syncope. The mean diameter of the ascending aorta was 44 +/- 8.8 mm. The intimal tears were located in all patients on the posterior aspect of the ascending aorta 1 to 40 mm above the left coronary ostium; its length varied from 2.8 to 12.3 mm. Preoperative aortography, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography could not identify the discrete intimal tears. Transesophageal echocardiography provided unique diagnostic information on (1) subtle intimal discontinuity, (2) circumscribed intramural hematoma, and (3) discrete pericardial fluid around the dissected aorta. Six patients underwent emergency surgery on the basis of echocardiographic findings, and they were all alive at follow-up. Compared with patients with classic aortic dissection, those with discrete dissection had lower operative mortality (0% vs 26%, p = 0.11), shorter hospital stay (7.2 +/- 2.8 vs 21 +/- 19 days, p = 0.01), and less frequent need for blood transfusions (0% vs 39%, p = 0.02). In conclusion, elevated clinical suspicion and detailed transesophageal echocardiographic examination are important for the early identification of discrete aortic dissection, leading to prompt surgery, shorter hospital stays, and better outcomes.

Noninvasive techniques often provide controversial results in patients who have coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs). Vasodilator stress echocardiography allows semi-simultaneous imaging of CABG flow and segmental left ventricular wall motion. To assess the comparative and additive value of regional flow and function for noninvasive evaluation of graft patency status, we evaluated 110 consecutive patients who underwent CABG and who were scheduled for coronary angiography. All patients underwent stress echocardiography with dipyridamole (0.84 mg/kg) and atropine (1 mg), including wall motion analysis by 2-dimensional echocardiography and Doppler evaluation of flow reserve of each CABG. Echocardiographic findings were compared with angiographic data. Four patients had inadequate acoustic windows. The remaining 106 patients had 226 grafts performed. Stress echocardiography showed 67% sensitivity, 91% specificity, and 71% accuracy for identification of 50% to 100% stenosis in the graft or in the recipient coronary vessel. There was a fair agreement with angiography (kappa coefficient 0.60). Identification of impaired coronary bypass flow reserve (i.e., <1.9 for internal mammary grafts and <1.6 for saphenous vein grafts) by Doppler had 91% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and 89% accuracy for graft stenosis. There was good agreement with angiographic findings (kappa 0.77). The combination of the 2 techniques achieved 93% sensitivity, 93% specificity, and 93% accuracy, showing a very good agreement with the patency status of the grafts as evaluated at angiography (kappa 0.85). The combined assessment of wall motion and flow reserve in patients who underwent CABG is feasible and provides an accurate estimate of graft patency status by increasing sensitivity of stress echocardiography and specificity of Doppler flow reserve.

The aim of this study was to assess the comparative diagnostic value of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and retrograde aortography for morphologic evaluation and anatomic mapping of aortic dissection. Seventy patients (aged 18 to 79 years) were prospectively evaluated with both techniques for suspected aortic dissection. In 64 patients, findings on aortography and TEE could be validated against intraoperative (n = 53) and postmortem (n = 11) findings. Examination time was significantly shorter for TEE (9 +/- 6 vs 48 +/- 25 minutes; p < 0.001). For the detection of aortic dissection, aortography showed lower sensitivity (87.5% vs 97.5%) and negative predictive value (85.3% vs 96.7%; both trends did not reach statistical significance) due mostly to the inability to identify noncommunicating dissection (dissection without intimal tears). For the epiphenomena of aortic dissection, aortography was significantly more accurate (97.2% vs 78%; p < 0.05) in assessing the site of entry, and TEE was more accurate in identifying thrombus formation (90% vs 65%; p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between aortography and TEE with regard to assessing secondary tears, aortic regurgitation, coronary dissection, and extension of the dissection. Thus, both TEE and aortography offer detailed anatomic mapping for guided surgical interventions. In elective patients, integration of both techniques seems the best approach; in unstable patients, TEE may be preferential because it is less invasive, requires no contrast injection, and provides accurate diagnosis in a short time at the bedside.