BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare treatment of moderate to severe symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR) with either conventional surgery or the mitral valve edge-to-edge device (MitraClip®) in very elderly patients. The newly introduced MitraClip device has demonstrated promising acute results in treating this patient cohort. Also noteworthy is the fact that patients who otherwise would have been denied surgery are increasingly referred for treatment with the MitraClip device. We sought to review our institutional experience, comparing outcomes in both surgical and MitraClip arms of treatment in the elderly population with symptomatic MR.MethodsFrom October 2008 through October 2014, 136 consecutive patients aged ≥ 80 with moderate to severe symptomatic MR were scheduled for either conventional surgery or MitraClip intervention. 56 patients ≥ 80 were operated for symptomatic MR and 80 patients ≥ 80 were treated with the mitraClip device. Patients suitable for this study were identified from our hospital database. Patients ≥80 with moderate/severe symptomatic MR treated with either conventional surgery or the MitraClip device were eligible for our analysis. We compared the surgical patient cohort with the mitraClip patient cohort after eliminating patients that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Forty-two patients were identified from the conventional cohort who were then compared with 42 patients from the mitraClip cohort. Forty-two patients (50%) underwent mitral valve repair or replacement (40.5% functional MR, 59.5% organic/mixed MR) and 42 patients (50%) underwent MitraClip intervention (50% functional MR, 50% organic/mixed MR). Associated procedures in the conventional surgical group were myocardial revascularization 38%, pulmonary vein ablation 23.8%, left atrial appendage resection 52.4% and PFO occlusion 11.9%.ResultsPatients who underwent MitraClip treatment were though slightly older but the differences did not attain statistical significance (mean, 82.2 ± 1.65 vs 81.7 ± 1.35 years, p = 0,100), had lower LVEF (mean, 47.6 ± 14.2 vs 53.4 ± 14.3, p = 0.072), lower logistic EuroScore II (mean, 11.3 ± 5.63 vs 12.1 ± 10.6, p = 0.655) but higher STS risk score (mean, 11.8 ± 6.7 vs 8.1 ± 5.6, p = 0.008) respectively compared to surgical patients. Procedural success was 100% vs 96% in surgery and MitraClip groups respectively. Thirty -day mortality was 7.1% vs 4.8% (p = 1.000) in surgery and MitraClip group respectively. Residual postoperative MR ≥2 at discharge was present in none of the patients treated surgically, whereas this was the case in 10 (23.8%) patients treated with the MitraClip device. At 1 year a cumulative number of four (9.52%) patients died in the surgical group vs 9 (21.4%) patients who died in the MitraClip group.ConclusionsElderly patients presenting with moderate to severe symptomatic MR may either be treated by conventional surgery or with the MitraClip device with acceptable acute outcomes. The decision for treatment with the MitraClip device should not depend on age alone ...

Our series demonstrate that highest risk patients can survive mitral valve surgery after failed multiple edge-to-edge interventional mitral valve repair. As long-term results of the MitraClip therapy are pending, we recommend close meshed follow-up of patients treated with the MitraClip device, especially within the first year of the index procedure as delays in salvage management, interventional or surgical, when the index procedure fails may increase morbidity and mortality.

Percutaneous treatment of AVS and MVR is feasible and safe. A tailored approach should be considered to treat firstly the AVS and subsequently the MVR when severe MV dysfunction and symptoms persist. Short-term durability of this combined percutaneous approach seems encouraging and justifies the economical burden to treat patients that have no other option.

BackgroundWhipple’s disease is a rare, often multisystemic chronic infectious disease caused by the rod-shaped bacterium Tropheryma whipplei. Very rarely the heart is involved in the process of the disease, leading to culture-negative infective endocarditis. Up to 20 % of all infective endocarditis are blood culture-negative and therefore a diagnostic challenge. We present two unusual cases of culture-negative infective endocarditis encountered in two different patients with prior history of arthralgia. A history of rheumatic arthritis or even a transient arthralgia should put Tropheryma whipplei on the top of differentials in patients of this age group presenting with culture-negative infective endocarditis, especially in cases of therapy resistance to antirheumatic agents.Case presentationThe first patient was a 55 year-old Caucasian male with culture-negative Whipple-related adhesive pericarditis and endocarditis of the aortic valve. Importantly, the patient reported a 15-year history of therapy resistant sero-negative migratory polyarthritis. Aortic valve endocarditis developed during treatment with tocilizumab. The second patient was a 65-year-old male patient with no prior history of the classic Whipple’s disease who presented with a culture-negative aortic valve endocarditis. His past medical history revealed episodes of transient arthralgia, which he was not treated for however, due to the self-limiting nature of the symptoms. Both patients underwent aortic valve replacement surgery. During surgery, pericardectomy was necessary in the first patient due to adhesive pericarditis. Post surgery both patients were started on long-term treatment with trimetoprim-sulfamethoxazol. At 1-year follow-up of both patients, echocardiographic and clinical assessment revealed no signs of persistent infection. Both men reported negative history of arthralgia during the one year period post surgery.ConclusionTropheryma whipplei culture negative-infective endocarditis is an emerging clinical entity, predominantly found in middle-aged and older men with a history of arthralgia. These data highlight the need for ruling out Whipple’s disease in patients with a history of arthralgia prior to initiation of biological agents in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. There is also a need to assess for Tropheryma whipplei in all patients with culture- negative infective endocarditis.

As methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and infection in humans are a global challenge. In Mecklenburg and Western Pomerania (Germany) 1,517 patients who underwent surgical interventions were systematically screened for MRSA and MSSA colonization on the day of hospital admission and discharge. Demographic data, risk factors and colonization status of the (i) nose, (ii) throat, (iii) groin, and (iv) thorax or site of surgical intervention were determined. Of the 1,433 patients who were included for further evaluation, 331 (23.1%) were colonized with MSSA, while only 17 (1.2%) were MRSA carriers on the day of hospital admission. A combination of nose, throat and groin swabs returned a detection rate of 98.3% for MSSA/MRSA. Trauma patients had lower prevalence of MRSA/MSSA (OR 0.524, 95% CI: 0.37-0.75; p < 0.001) than patients with intended orthopedic interventions. Males showed significantly higher nasal S. aureus carrier rates than females (odds ratio (OR) = 1.478; 95% CI: 1.14-1.92; p = 0.003). Nasal S. aureus colonization was less frequent among male smokers as compared to non-smokers (chi = 16.801; phi = 0.154; p < 0.001). Age, gender and smoking had a significant influence on S. aureus colonization. Combining at least three different swabbing sites should be considered for standard screening procedure to determine S. aureus colonization at patients scheduled for cardiac or orthopedic interventions at tertiary care hospitals.