Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: About 40% of patients with infective endocarditis will require surgical treatment. The guidelines for such treatment were formulated by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in 1998.

Objectives: To examine our experience with surgical treatment of infective endocarditis in light of these guidelines.

Methods: Surgery was performed in 59 patients with infective endocarditis between 1990 and 1999. The patients' mean age was 48 years (range 13–80). The indications for surgery were hemodynamic instability, uncontrolled infection, and peripheral embolic events. The surgical treatment was based on elimination of infection foci and correction of the hemodynamic derangement. These objectives were met with valve replacement in the majority of patients. Whenever conservative surgery was possible, resection of vegetation and subsequent valve repair were performed and the native valve was preserved.

Results: Six patients (10%) died perioperatively from overwhelming sepsis (n=3), low cardiac output (n=2) and multiorgan failure (n=1). The mean hospital stay was 15.6 days. Of 59 patients, 47 (80%) underwent valve replacement and in 11 (19%) the surgical treatment was based on valve repair. After 1 year of follow up, there was no re-infection.

Conclusion: The new guidelines for surgical treatment of infective endocarditis allow better selection of patients and timing of surgery for this aggressive disease, which consequently decreases the mortality rate. Valve repair is feasible and is preferred whenever possible. According to the new guidelines, patients with neurologic deficit in our series would not have been operated upon, potentially decreasing the operative mortality to 7%.

Background: Concomitant mitral valve regurgitation is often present in patients with aortic stenosis. The additional MV[1] replacement is associated with high operative risk. Previous studies have shown an amelioration of MV regurgitation after aortic valve replacement but most of the patient groups were heterogenous.

Objectives: To determine whether AV[2] replacement for aortic stenosis has any effect on MV regurgitation.

Methods: We reviewed two-dimensional echocardiography and color flow Doppler assessment of both aortic stenosis and MV regurgitation severity in 30 patients. Patients with previous MV surgery, organic MV disease, occlusive carotid artery disease, ejection fraction < 50%, and coexisting significant AV regurgitation were excluded. Preoperatively, MV regurgitation was mild in 23 patients (77%) and moderate in 7 (23%); in no patient was the condition severe. All patients had severe atrial stenosis (peak average aortic gradient was 86  ± 22 mmHg in the mild MV regurgitation group, and 83 ± 26 mmHg in the moderate group). The patients were divided into two groups according to the severity of MV regurgitation (associated mild, and moderate). Group 2, with moderate MV regurgitation, was the most problematic in terms of decision making for concomitant MV surgery. Therefore, additional assessment of several parameters was required.

Results: There was a significant decrease in MV regurgitation area (7.6 ± 1.9 vs. 3.0 ± 1.2 cm², P £ 0.012) and percent (28 ± 5% vs. 12 ± 6%, P £ 0.001) between pre- and postoperative evaluation. Thus, the severity of the condition in all patients with moderate MV regurgitation decreased after AV replacement; in the mild group it remained unchanged in 53% or improved in 47%. There was no association between the preoperative gradient on the aortic valve and the degree of MV regurgitation.

Conclusions: In our population of patients with severe atrial stenosis there were no patients with coexisting severe MV regurgitation. The decision to repair or replace a severely leaking mitral valve is an easy one, as in mild MV regurgitation. The clinical problem often presents in patients with severe aortic stenosis and moderate MV regurgitation. We believe that additional MV surgery is not necessary, at least in patients with preserved left ventricular function and without organic MV disease.

Background: Myocardial infarction-associated pericarditis is a common cause of chest pain following MI[1], its frequency depending on how it is defined.

Objectives: To investigate the incidence of acute pericarditis and pericardial effusion in the acute phase of ST-elevation MI treated with thrombolytic therapy.

Methods: The study group comprised 159 consecutive patients fulfilling the criteria for acute MI who were admitted to our department during 18 months. Infarct-associated pericarditis was defined as the finding of a pericardial friction rub, a typical pleuropericardial pain, or both. All patients underwent physical examination of the cardiovascular system four times daily for 7 days, as well as daily electrocardiogram and echo Doppler examinations.

Results: Fourteen patients (8.8%) developed a friction rub and 11 patients (6.9%) had a mild pericardial effusion. Six patients (4.0%) had both a friction rub and pericardial effusion. Two patients had a friction rub for more than 7 days. Pleuropericardial chest pain was present in 31 patients (19.5%) but only 7 of them had a friction rub.  The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.3% and no mortality was observed in the acute pericarditis group.

Conclusion: The incidence of signs associated with acute pericarditis was lower in MI patients treated with thrombolysis, compared with historical controls, when a friction rub and/or pericardial effusion was present. There was no significant reduction in the incidence of pleuropericardial chest pain.