Repair versus replacement of the aortic valve in active infective endocarditis

Abstract

Objectives: Aortic valve repair has advantages over replacement in stable aortic regurgitation. It is unclear whether this is similar in active endocarditis.

Methods: From January 2000 to July 2009, 100 patients (age 54.9±15.1 years) underwent surgery for aortic valve endocarditis. Thirty-three patients were treated by valve repair (I) and 67 underwent valve replacement (II: 51 biologic, 10 mechanical valves, 6 Ross operations). In Group I, cusp and root lesions were treated by autologous pericardial patches. A root abscess was present in 32 cases (I: 27%, II 34%; P=0.82). Concomitant procedures (n=49) were mitral repair (I: 10, II: 11; P=0.12) and coronary bypass (I: 4, II: 11; P=0.77). All patients were followed. Cumulative follow-up was 268 patient-years (mean 2.7±3.0 years). In a retrospective analysis, we analysed the outcome.

Results: Hospital mortality was 15% (I: 9%, II: 18%; P=0.37). Survival at 5 years was significantly better after repair (I: 88%, II 65%; P=0.047). Ten patients were reoperated (I: 35%, II: 10%; P=0.021) between 1 month and 5 years postoperatively. Actuarial freedom from aortic regurgitation of grade II or higher was 80% at 5 years (I: 66%, II: 87%; P=0.066). In Group I, this was influenced by aorto-ventricular (AV) morphology (tricuspid 80%, bicuspid 50%; P=0.0045). Freedom from reoperation in reconstructed tricuspid valves (n=20) was 87% at 5 years, which was identical to Group II (P=0.40). At 5 years, freedom from thromboembolic events was 93% (I: 100%, II: 90%; P=0.087) and that from bleeding complications was 100%.

Conclusions: AV repair for active endocarditis seems to lead to better survival compared with replacement. The use of large patches in combination with bicuspid anatomy results in increased risk of late failure.