Search

Background: Echocardiography is the primary imaging modality for diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) in prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) including IE after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with absent compared with evident echocardiographic signs of TAVI-IE., Methods: Patients with definite TAVI-IE derived from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVI International Registry were investigated comparing those with absent and evident echocardiographic signs of IE defined as vegetation, abscess, pseudo-aneurysm, intracardiac fistula, or valvular perforation or aneurysm., Results: Among 578 patients, 87 (15.1%) and 491 (84.9%) had absent (IE-neg) and evident (IE-pos) echocardiographic signs of IE, respectively. IE-neg were more often treated via a transfemoral access with a self-expanding device and had higher rates of peri-interventional complications (eg, stroke, major vascular complications) during the TAVI procedure (P < .05 for all). IE-neg had higher rates of IE caused by Staphylococcus aureus (33.7% vs 23.2%; P = .038) and enterococci (37.2% vs 23.8%; P = .009) but lower rates of coagulase-negative staphylococci (4.7% vs 20.0%, P = .001). IE-neg was associated with the same dismal prognosis for in-hospital mortality in a multivariate binary regression analysis (odds ratio: 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .55-4.12) as well as a for 1-year mortality in Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: .67-1.80)., Conclusions: Even with negative echocardiographic imaging, patients who have undergone TAVI and presenting with positive blood cultures and symptoms of infection are a high-risk patient group having a reasonable suspicion of IE and the need for an early treatment initiation., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. N. M. reports personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events), Medtronic (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events), Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events), Abiomed, and Boston Scientific (consulting and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events), outside the submitted work. J. R.-C. has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. V. P. received research grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport. A. L. reports personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer, outside the submitted work. H. C. H. has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. H. L. B. reports lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work. J.-M. S. reports speaker’s honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic and research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. W.-K. K. reports proctor/speaker’s fees/advisory board participation from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and ShockWave Medical, outside the submitted work. L. S. has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and SMT. O. H. reports personal fees from Boston Scientific and payments from Abbott. 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) 2022. 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.)

Background: The optimal treatment of patients developing infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is uncertain., Objectives: The goal of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with TAVI-IE treated with cardiac surgery and antibiotics (IE-CS) compared with patients treated with antibiotics alone (IE-AB)., Methods: Crude and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were applied for the treatment effect of cardiac surgery vs medical therapy on 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with definite TAVI-IE. The study used data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVI International Registry., Results: Among 584 patients, 111 patients (19%) were treated with IE-CS and 473 patients (81%) with IE-AB. Compared with IE-AB, IE-CS was not associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (HR unadj : 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.25) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HR unadj : 0.88; 95% CI: 0.64-1.22) in the crude cohort. After adjusting for selection and immortal time bias, IE-CS compared with IE-AB was also not associated with lower mortality rates for in-hospital mortality (HR adj : 0.92; 95% CI: 0.80-1.05) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HR adj : 0.95; 95% CI: 0.84-1.07). Results remained similar when patients with and without TAVI prosthesis involvement were analyzed separately. Predictors for in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality included logistic EuroSCORE I, Staphylococcus aureus, acute renal failure, persistent bacteremia, and septic shock., Conclusions: In this registry, the majority of patients with TAVI-IE were treated with antibiotics alone. Cardiac surgery was not associated with an improved all-cause in-hospital or 1-year mortality. The high mortality of patients with TAVI-IE was strongly linked to patients' characteristics, pathogen, and IE-related complications., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mangner has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr Tchetche has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Capricor, and St. Jude Medical; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr de Brito has received honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences for symposium speeches and proctoring cases. Dr Lerakis has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Le Breton has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work. Dr Sinning has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Dr Kim has received proctor/speaker fees/served on the advisory board for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and Shockwave Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr Stortecky has received grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, BTG, and Teleflex, outside the submitted work. Dr Søndergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Husser has received personal fees from Boston Scientific; and payments from Abbott. Dr Linke has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer outside the submitted work. Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Staphylococcus aureus (SA) has been extensively studied as causative microorganism of surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis (IE). However, scarce evidence exists on SA IE after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods: Data were obtained from the Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry, including patients with definite IE after TAVR from 59 centres in 11 countries. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to microbiologic etiology: non-SA IE vs SA IE., Results: SA IE was identified in 141 patients out of 573 (24.6%), methicillin-sensitive SA in most cases (115/141, 81.6%). Self-expanding valves were more common than balloon-expandable valves in patients presenting with early SA IE. Major bleeding and sepsis complicating TAVR, neurologic symptoms or systemic embolism at admission, and IE with cardiac device involvement (other than the TAVR prosthesis) were associated with SA IE (P < 0.05 for all). Among patients with IE after TAVR, the likelihood of SA IE increased from 19% in the absence of those risk factors to 84.6% if ≥ 3 risk factors were present. In-hospital (47.8% vs 26.9%; P < 0.001) and 2-year (71.5% vs 49.6%; P < 0.001) mortality rates were higher among patients with SA IE vs non-SA IE. Surgery at the time of index SA IE episode was associated with lower mortality at follow-up compared with medical therapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96; P = 0.038)., Conclusions: SA IE represented approximately 25% of IE cases after TAVR and was associated with very high in-hospital and late mortality. The presence of some features determined a higher likelihood of SA IE and could help to orientate early antibiotic regimen selection. Surgery at index SA IE was associated with improved outcomes, and its role should be evaluated in future studies., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)