Aim: Comparing the results of acute phase infectious endocarditis surgery between two periods. Methods and Results: The study is about 2 series, series A between 1993 and 1997, and series B between 1998 and 2012, resp...Aim: Comparing the results of acute phase infectious endocarditis surgery between two periods. Methods and Results: The study is about 2 series, series A between 1993 and 1997, and series B between 1998 and 2012, respectively 13 and 51 patients. The two periods were similar concerning the number of patients per year, which was 3.12 cases/year for series A and 3.64 cases/year for series B. The authors noted a change in epidemiological profile, with an increase of median age (31 y.o for series A and 37 y.o for series B), and the emergency of endocarditis on prosthetic valve (none on series A and 8 cases for series B). Surgical indications and results didn’t change too much, hospital mortality rate was 15.3% for series A and 17.6% for series B. Conclusion: Infectious endocarditis is still a major public healthcare problem in developing countries, despite the development of diagnostic tools and patient care. Prevention is still the major asset in the treatment of this disease.展开更多
Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the effects of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) or regurgitation (AR) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Patients and methods: Retr...Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the effects of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) or regurgitation (AR) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis identified 75 consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessed by echocardiography < 40% who underwent AVR for AS (n = 40) or AR (n = 35) between 1994 and 2011. Exclusion criteria were previous myocardial infarction or concomitant valvular disorders other than aortic disease. Follow-up evaluated the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, LVEF and survival rate. Results: Mean ages were respectively 56.5 ± 9.3 and 47.9 ± 11.7 years in AS and AR groups, p = 0.001. Before surgery, 88% and 75% of patients were in NYHA III-IV respectively in AS and AR. In the AS group, the mean LVEF and aortic valve area (AVA) were respectively 32.2% ± 8% and 0.65 ± 0.15 cm2. AR group had a mean LVEF of 33.8 ± 6.7% and a mean LV systolic diameter of 62 ± 8.8 mm. All patients underwent AVR under cardiopulmonary bypass. There were 5 operative deaths (12.5%) in AS group and 6 (17.6%) in AR group, p = 0.57. LVEF increased to 49% ± 14.7% and 51.2% ± 10.9% in the AS and AR groups after echocardiography control. The survival rates at 1, 5 and 10 years were respectively 94.4%, 87% and 80% in AS group and 95.2%, 93% and 89% in AR group. Conclusion: Despite higher perioperative mortality in patients with aortic valve disease (AS or AR) and LV dysfunction, long-term outcome is excellent. We, therefore, conclude that AVR can be performed and it should not be denied to patients on the basis of low EF alone.展开更多
文摘Aim: Comparing the results of acute phase infectious endocarditis surgery between two periods. Methods and Results: The study is about 2 series, series A between 1993 and 1997, and series B between 1998 and 2012, respectively 13 and 51 patients. The two periods were similar concerning the number of patients per year, which was 3.12 cases/year for series A and 3.64 cases/year for series B. The authors noted a change in epidemiological profile, with an increase of median age (31 y.o for series A and 37 y.o for series B), and the emergency of endocarditis on prosthetic valve (none on series A and 8 cases for series B). Surgical indications and results didn’t change too much, hospital mortality rate was 15.3% for series A and 17.6% for series B. Conclusion: Infectious endocarditis is still a major public healthcare problem in developing countries, despite the development of diagnostic tools and patient care. Prevention is still the major asset in the treatment of this disease.
文摘Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the effects of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) or regurgitation (AR) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis identified 75 consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessed by echocardiography < 40% who underwent AVR for AS (n = 40) or AR (n = 35) between 1994 and 2011. Exclusion criteria were previous myocardial infarction or concomitant valvular disorders other than aortic disease. Follow-up evaluated the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, LVEF and survival rate. Results: Mean ages were respectively 56.5 ± 9.3 and 47.9 ± 11.7 years in AS and AR groups, p = 0.001. Before surgery, 88% and 75% of patients were in NYHA III-IV respectively in AS and AR. In the AS group, the mean LVEF and aortic valve area (AVA) were respectively 32.2% ± 8% and 0.65 ± 0.15 cm2. AR group had a mean LVEF of 33.8 ± 6.7% and a mean LV systolic diameter of 62 ± 8.8 mm. All patients underwent AVR under cardiopulmonary bypass. There were 5 operative deaths (12.5%) in AS group and 6 (17.6%) in AR group, p = 0.57. LVEF increased to 49% ± 14.7% and 51.2% ± 10.9% in the AS and AR groups after echocardiography control. The survival rates at 1, 5 and 10 years were respectively 94.4%, 87% and 80% in AS group and 95.2%, 93% and 89% in AR group. Conclusion: Despite higher perioperative mortality in patients with aortic valve disease (AS or AR) and LV dysfunction, long-term outcome is excellent. We, therefore, conclude that AVR can be performed and it should not be denied to patients on the basis of low EF alone.
