Outcome of Percutaneous and Surgical Management for Tricuspid Infective Endocarditis: Insights From a National Study

IF 2.5 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
{"title":"Outcome of Percutaneous and Surgical Management for Tricuspid Infective Endocarditis: Insights From a National Study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cjco.2024.05.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The prevalence of infective endocarditis (IE) and its associated mortality rates remain high, despite medical advances. In recent years, treatment options for IE have expanded, but they are yet to be widely utilized. The current study aimed to compare in-hospital outcomes of high-risk tricuspid valve (TV) IE patients, by treatment strategy.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients from the National Inpatient Sample 2017-2019 database who had TV IE were grouped by therapy type—percutaneous aspiration, surgical, or conservative management. Patients were considered to be at high risk if they underwent mechanical intervention or if they had right ventricle failure or septic emboli.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The analyzed cohort consisted of 28,495 patients—1.7% were treated with percutaneous aspiration, 13.5% with surgery, and 84.6% conservatively. Patients treated with percutaneous aspiration had the highest prevalence of septic shock and acute respiratory failure (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 7%. Patients treated conservatively had higher in-hospital mortality rates (7.5%) compared to those of the surgical group (4.4%) and the percutaneous aspiration group (4.1%; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, conservative management was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.853, 95% confidence interval 1.748-4.659, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001), and no significant difference was found between the aspiration and surgical groups (<em>P</em> = 0.346). Benefits were pronounced in younger patients and those with septic shock or respiratory failure. Patients in the aspiration group had the highest rate of home discharge with self-care, of the various patient dispositions (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Among high-risk patients with TV IE, an invasive approach is associated with a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate than is a conservative approach, particularly in younger and unstable patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36924,"journal":{"name":"CJC Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24002221/pdfft?md5=598d103dd222901d6751d4d41ef9b540&pid=1-s2.0-S2589790X24002221-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJC Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24002221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of infective endocarditis (IE) and its associated mortality rates remain high, despite medical advances. In recent years, treatment options for IE have expanded, but they are yet to be widely utilized. The current study aimed to compare in-hospital outcomes of high-risk tricuspid valve (TV) IE patients, by treatment strategy.

Methods

Patients from the National Inpatient Sample 2017-2019 database who had TV IE were grouped by therapy type—percutaneous aspiration, surgical, or conservative management. Patients were considered to be at high risk if they underwent mechanical intervention or if they had right ventricle failure or septic emboli.

Results

The analyzed cohort consisted of 28,495 patients—1.7% were treated with percutaneous aspiration, 13.5% with surgery, and 84.6% conservatively. Patients treated with percutaneous aspiration had the highest prevalence of septic shock and acute respiratory failure (P < 0.001). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 7%. Patients treated conservatively had higher in-hospital mortality rates (7.5%) compared to those of the surgical group (4.4%) and the percutaneous aspiration group (4.1%; P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, conservative management was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.853, 95% confidence interval 1.748-4.659, P < 0.001), and no significant difference was found between the aspiration and surgical groups (P = 0.346). Benefits were pronounced in younger patients and those with septic shock or respiratory failure. Patients in the aspiration group had the highest rate of home discharge with self-care, of the various patient dispositions (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Among high-risk patients with TV IE, an invasive approach is associated with a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate than is a conservative approach, particularly in younger and unstable patients.

Abstract Image

经皮和手术治疗三尖瓣感染性心内膜炎的效果:一项全国性研究的启示
背景尽管医疗技术不断进步,但感染性心内膜炎(IE)的发病率及其相关死亡率仍然居高不下。近年来,IE的治疗方案不断增加,但尚未得到广泛应用。本研究旨在按治疗策略比较高风险三尖瓣(TV)IE患者的院内预后。方法将2017-2019年全国住院患者抽样数据库中的TV IE患者按治疗类型(经皮抽吸、手术或保守治疗)分组。如果患者接受了机械干预或出现右心室衰竭或化脓性栓子,则被视为高风险患者。结果分析的队列由28495名患者组成,其中1.7%接受了经皮穿刺抽吸治疗,13.5%接受了手术治疗,84.6%接受了保守治疗。采用经皮抽吸术治疗的患者中,脓毒性休克和急性呼吸衰竭的发生率最高(P < 0.001)。院内总死亡率为 7%。保守治疗患者的院内死亡率(7.5%)高于手术组(4.4%)和经皮抽吸组(4.1%;P < 0.001)。在多变量分析中,保守治疗与院内死亡风险增加有关(几率比2.853,95%置信区间1.748-4.659,P <0.001),抽吸组和手术组之间没有发现显著差异(P = 0.346)。年轻患者和脓毒性休克或呼吸衰竭患者获益明显。结论在 TV IE 的高危患者中,侵入性方法的院内死亡率明显低于保守性方法,尤其是在年轻和病情不稳定的患者中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CJC Open
CJC Open Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
60 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信