Search

Background and Aim of the Study: Q fever is a worldwide zoonosis caused by a fastidious bacterium, Coxiella burnetii. A recent major outbreak of which in the Netherlands will most likely lead to the emergence of hundreds of cases of C. burnetii endocarditis during the next decade. Patients undergoing cardiac valve surgery may carry undiagnosed Q fever endocarditis with possible disastrous outcomes, and hence may benefit from a screening strategy. The study aim was to evaluate the frequency of unsuspected latent Q fever endocarditis in patients undergoing routine valve surgery., Methods: At the present authors' institution, all resected cardiac valves/prostheses are examined routinely histologically, microbiologically and on a molecular biological basis, in addition to serological testing for fastidious microorganisms. A retrospective review was conducted of data relating to all patients who had unsuspected Q fever endocarditis that had been diagnosed after routine valve/prosthesis replacement/repair between 2000 and 2013 at the authors' institution., Results: Among 6,401 patients undergoing valve surgery, postoperative examinations of the explanted valves/prostheses led to an unexpected diagnosis of Q fever endocarditis in 14 cases (0.2%), who subsequently underwent appropriate medical treatments. Only two of the patients (14%) had intraoperative findings suggestive of endocarditis. On serological analysis of the blood samples, 11 patients (79%) presented an evocative Phase I IgG antibody titer > or =800. Valvular tissue-sample analyses yielded positive cultures and PCR in the same 13 patients (93%), whereas pathological and immunohistochemical examinations alone were suggestive of endocarditis in only seven Cases (50%)., Conclusion: This screening strategy led to an unexpected diagnosis of Q fever endocarditis in 0.2% of patients undergoing routine valve surgery, who received subsequent appropriate antibiotic therapy. Systematic serological analysis should be mandatory before performing heart valve surgery in countries where C. burnetii is endemic. A positive serology should lead to appropriate valve-specimen analyses, including microbiological, molecular biological and histological evaluations.

Background and Aim of the Study: Today, when a mitral valve replacement is required, more patients and surgeons choose a bioprosthesis. Yet, the rationale of this choice is unclear in patients in whom age represents a predicting factor for reoperation. The study aim was to define the risk factors for reoperation after mitral bioprosthesis failure., Methods: A total of 282 consecutive patients (202 women, 80 men; mean age at surgery 61 years; range: 28-88 years) who underwent reoperation for mitral bioprosthesis failure between 1990 and 2006 was reviewed. Surgery was undertaken because of bioprosthesis degeneration (91%), prosthetic valve infective endocarditis (6%), paravalvular leak (2%), or other causes (1%). Emergency procedures were performed in 7% of cases. Associated procedures included tricuspid valve surgery in 16% of patients (tricuspid valve repair in 11%, tricuspid valve replacement in 5%) and coronary artery bypass graft in 5%. Almost one-fifth of patients (18%) had undergone more than one previous mitral valve replacement., Results: The overall operative mortality was 7.4% (n = 21). Factors identified (by multivariate analysis) as predictors of operative death included: presence of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio (OR) = 8.69, 95% CI 2.55-29.61; p = 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 9.01, 95% CI 1.72-47.18; p = 0.009), NYHA class III/IV (OR 5.46, 95% CI 1.41-21.16; p = 0.01), and pulmonary artery pressure > 60 mmHg (OR = 3.13, 95% CI 1.10-8.94; p = 0.03). Associated procedures were not significant risk factors for mortality. New prostheses were mechanical in 68% of cases, and bioprostheses in 32%., Conclusion: One reoperation for mitral bioprosthesis dysfunction is acceptable if the patient can be expected to survive to reoperation while free from comorbidities and the severe effects of mitral disease. The application of strict selective criteria to recipients at the first valve replacement, combined with a close follow up, may allow this goal to be achieved.

Background and Aim of the Study: Isolated posterior leaflet prolapse of the mitral valve may present with more complex anatomy than limited middle scallop prolapse (P2). The study aim was to describe the incidence and surgical management of extensive or commissural posterior leaflet prolapse, in addition to long-term outcomes following repair., Methods: Between October 2001 and May 2008, among 481 patients operated on for mitral valve prolapse, 201 consecutive patients underwent mitral valve repair for isolated posterior leaflet prolapse. Of the latter patients, only 81 (40%) had limited P2 prolapse, while the remaining 120 (60%) showed complex posterior leaflet prolapse, including either extensive (n = 105) or commissural (n = 15) prolapse. Extensive leaflet prolapse was treated with aggressive leaflet resection and sliding plasty, combined with a longitudinal annular plication using polytetrafluoroethylene running sutures. Commissural prolapse was repaired with an edge-to-edge technique or commissuroplasty. The clinical and echocardiographic follow up was complete for all patients, and extended up to 6.8 years (mean 2.4 +/- 1.9 years)., Results: There was no hospital mortality. Repair was successful in 200 patients (99%), who showed no or trivial mitral regurgitation (MR) intraoperatively. The five-year freedom from recurrent MR (grade > 1+) was 91.5 +/- 4.2% in patients with isolated P2 prolapse, compared to 98.8 +/- 1.2% in patients with complex posterior leaflet prolapse (p = 0.07). The repair of complex posterior leaflet prolapse was also similar to that of isolated P2 prolapse with regard to five-year freedom from reoperation (98.9 +/- 5.9% versus 100%; p = 0.4), and survival (92.1 +/- 3.3% versus 88.9 +/- 8.0%; p = 0.9)., Conclusion: In the present series, posterior leaflet prolapse offered more complexity than usually reported, requiring surgical skills beyond simple quadrangular resection. However, the surgical approach, which typically involved extensive leaflet resection and sliding plasty, offered high repair rates and acceptable durability, considering the initial severity of the prolapse anatomy.

Background and Aim of the Study: The new-generation bioprostheses are associated with a longer lifespan, and therefore tend to be implanted in younger patients. However, with the increase in life expectancy, the trend is towards a higher rate of repeat valve replacement. Hence, the study aim was to evaluate the present mortality and risk factors for repeat valvular surgery., Methods: A total of 183 consecutive patients (87 males, 96 females; mean age 62 years; range: 28-88 years) who underwent repeat valve replacement at the authors' institution between 2001 and 2004 was reviewed. Reoperations in these patients were required due to structural degeneration of the bioprosthesis (50%), to paravalvular leak (20%), and to prosthetic endocarditis (14%), valve thrombosis (9%), and plasty failure (9%). In total, 105 patients (57%) had received at least one bioprosthesis during the previous operation, 58 (31%) had a mechanical valve, 15 (8%) had an isolated mitral plasty, and five (2%) hybrid procedures. All preoperative and operative risk factors were studied., Results: The overall operative mortality rate was 6.6% (n = 12), but only 3.9% (n = 4) for the bioprosthesis reoperation. The risk factors for mortality included pulmonary hypertension (> 60 mmHg; p = 0.03), renal insufficiency (p = 0.02), more than one repeat valve replacement (p = 0.004), previous mechanical prosthesis (p = 0.02), previous mitral surgery (p = 0.019), and associated tricuspid surgery (p = 0.03)., Conclusion: The data acquired tended to show that repeat valve replacement of bioprostheses may be carried out with an acceptable operative risk, in connection with the majority of operations on bioprostheses being secondary to structural degeneration of the implant. Hence, in most cases a well-controlled, programmed operation would lead to very low mortality (< 4%), despite a significant morbidity rate.

Background and Aim of the Study: The risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed aortic bioprosthesis may be overestimated, this being a dominant factor when selecting an initial prosthesis to be implanted in patients aged <70 years. The study aims were, first, to analyze the mortality and morbidity of redo aortic bioprosthesis replacement in the current era, and second, to identify preoperative risk factors and evaluate the EuroSCORE., Methods: A total of 156 consecutive patients (111 men, 45 women; mean age 60.9 years; range: 23-87 years) who underwent reoperation for failed aortic bioprosthesis between 1990 and 2006 was reviewed in this retrospective, single-center study. Surgery was undertaken due to bioprosthesis degeneration (82.7%), bacterial prosthetic endocarditis (14.1%), paravalvular leak (1.3%) and other causes (1.9%). Emergency procedures were performed in 9% of patients. Associated procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting in 7.7% of patients, ascending aortic graft in 7%, and complete aortic root replacement in 6.4%. The predictive mortality was 8% according to the Additive EuroSCORE, and 15% according to the Logistic EuroSCORE., Results: Overall, the operative mortality was 3.8% (n = 6), and postoperative morbidity was low. The only multivariable predictor was emergency surgery (OR = 15.22, 95% CI = 1.68-86.43; p = 0.02). A mortality trend was associated with atrial fibrillation and NYHA class III/IV, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.09 and p = 0.06, respectively). Associated procedures were not significant risk factors for mortality., Conclusion: Reoperation for aortic bioprosthesis dysfunction can be performed with a low risk of mortality. It appears that this risk is overestimated by the EuroSCORE. Those patients who wish to avoid postoperative anticoagulant therapy may choose to receive this type of valve, even if reoperation is foreseeable.