Valvectomy versus replacement for the surgical treatment of infective tricuspid valve endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publication/Presentation Date

11-1-2019

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Optimal surgical treatment of infective tricuspid valve endocarditis in patients with intravenous drug use (IVDU) remains controversial. Tricuspid valvectomy has been proposed for infective tricuspid valve endocarditis in this patient population given the inherent social concerns. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of valvectomy versus replacement for the surgical treatment of isolated infective tricuspid valve endocarditis.

METHODS: An electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies published. After assessment for inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 original studies were pooled for systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS: There were a total of 752 patients with infective tricuspid valve endocarditis, of which 14% underwent valvectomy and 86% underwent replacement (mean follow-up 4.2 years, 95% CI, 1.9-6.4 years). The most common indications for surgical intervention were septic pulmonary embolism in the valvectomy group (74%, 95% CI, 28-95%) and persistent sepsis in the replacement group (62%, 95% CI, 31-86%). There were no differences in rates of stroke [valvectomy 4% (95% CI, 1-11%)

CONCLUSIONS: Tricuspid valvectomy is an acceptable initial therapy for infective tricuspid valve endocarditis in patients with IVDU, providing a bridge to identify those who will self-select as candidates for staged valve replacement.

Volume

8

Issue

6

First Page

610

Last Page

620

ISSN

2225-319X

Disciplines

Business Administration, Management, and Operations | Health and Medical Administration | Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods

PubMedID

31832351

Department(s)

Administration and Leadership

Document Type

Article

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS