Mitral valve surgery in acute infective endocarditis: long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement

AimsTiming and surgical strategies in acute infective endocarditis are still questionable. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVR) compared with mitral valve replacement [mitral valve prosthesis (MVP)] for acute infective endocarditis.MethodsFrom 2004 to 2019, 109 consecutive patients with acute mitral valve infective endocarditis were retrospectively investigated. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical strategy: MVR 53/109 (48.6%) versus MVP 56/109 (51.4%). Primary end points were in-hospital mortality and overall survival at 10 years. Secondary end point was the freedom from infective endocarditis relapse.ResultsOur institutional surgical approach for infective endocarditis allowed us to achieve MVR in 48.6% of patients. Hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups [MVR: 1/53 (1.9%) versus MVP: 2/56 (3.6%), P = 1.000]. Overall 10-year survival was 80.0 +/- 14.1 and 77.2 +/- 13.5% for MVR and MVP, respectively (P = 0.648). MVR showed a lower incidence of infective endocarditis relapse compared with MVP (MVR: 93.6 +/- 7.1 versus MVP: 80.9 +/- 10.8%, P = 0.041). At Cox regression, infective endocarditis relapse was an independent risk factor for death (hazard ratio 4.03; 95% confidence interval 1.41-11.52; P = 0.009).ConclusionThe tendency to postpone surgery in stable patients with mitral infective endocarditis allowed achievement of MVR in almost 50% of patients. Although repair remains the approach of choice in our institution, no differences between MVR and MVP were reported in terms of early/late survival. However, MVP had a higher incidence of infective endocarditis relapse that represents an independent risk of mortality.