Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) remains a serious condition with a high mortality rate. Precise identification of the PVE-associated pathogen/s and their virulence is essential for successful therapy, and patient survival. The commonly described PVE-associated pathogens are staphylococci, streptococci and enterococci, with Staphylococcus aureus being the most frequently diagnosed species. Furthermore, multi-drug resistance pathogens are increasing in prevalence, and continue to pose new challenges mandating a personalized approach. Blood cultures in combination with echocardiography are the most common methods to diagnose PVE, often being the only indication, it exists. In many cases, the diagnostic strategy recommended in the clinical guidelines does not identify the precise microbial agent and to frequently, false negative blood cultures are reported. Despite the fact that blood culture findings are not always a good indicator of the actual PVE agent in the valve tissue, only a minority of re-operated prostheses are subjected to microbiological diagnostic evaluation. In this review, we focus on the diversity and the complete spectrum of PVE-associated bacterial, fungal and viral pathogens in blood, and prosthetic heart valve, their possible virulence potential, and their challenges in making a microbial diagnosis. We are curious to understand if the unacceptable high mortality of PVE is associated with the high number of negative microbial findings in connection with a possible PVE. Herein, we discuss the possibilities and limits of the diagnostic methods conventionally used and make recommendations for enhanced pathogen identification. We also show possible virulence factors of the most common PVE-associated pathogens and their clinical effects. Based on blood culture, molecular biological diagnostics, and specific valve examination, better derivations for the antibiotic therapy as well as possible preventive intervention can be established in the future.
Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) remains a serious condition with a high mortality rate. Precise identification of the PVE-associated pathogen/s and their virulence is essential for successful therapy, and patient survival. The commonly described PVE-associated pathogens are staphylococci, streptococci and enterococci, with Staphylococcus aureus being the most frequently diagnosed species. Furthermore, multi-drug resistance pathogens are increasing in prevalence, and continue to pose new challenges mandating a personalized approach. Blood cultures in combination with echocardiography are the most common methods to diagnose PVE, often being the only indication, it exists. In many cases, the diagnostic strategy recommended in the clinical guidelines does not identify the precise microbial agent and to frequently, false negative blood cultures are reported. Despite the fact that blood culture findings are not always a good indicator of the actual PVE agent in the valve tissue, only a minority of re-operated prostheses are subjected to microbiological diagnostic evaluation. In this review, we focus on the diversity and the complete spectrum of PVE-associated bacterial, fungal and viral pathogens in blood, and prosthetic heart valve, their possible virulence potential, and their challenges in making a microbial diagnosis. We are curious to understand if the unacceptable high mortality of PVE is associated with the high number of negative microbial findings in connection with a possible PVE. Herein, we discuss the possibilities and limits of the diagnostic methods conventionally used and make recommendations for enhanced pathogen identification. We also show possible virulence factors of the most common PVE-associated pathogens and their clinical effects. Based on blood culture, molecular biological diagnostics, and specific valve examination, better derivations for the antibiotic therapy as well as possible preventive intervention can be established in the future.
Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) carries significant morbidity/mortality. Our review aims to compare incidence, predisposing factors, microbiology, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of PVE in surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR patients. We searched PubMed and Embase to identify published studies from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2020. Key words were indexed for original reports, clinical studies, and reviews. Reports were evaluated by 2 authors against a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they reported incidence and outcomes related to surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE and excluded if they were published pre‐2015 or included a small population. We followed the Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines for all stages of the design and implementation. Study quality was based on the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Thirty‐three studies with 311 to 41 025 patients contained relevant information. The majority found no significant difference in incidence of surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE (reported as 0.3%–1.2% per patient‐year versus 0.6%–3.4%), but there were key differences in pathogenesis. TAVR has a specific set of infection risks related to entry site, procedure, and device, including nonstandardized protocols for infection control, valve crimping injury, paravalvular leak, neo‐leaflet stress, intact/calcified native leaflets, and intracardiac hardware. With the expansion of TAVR to lower risk and younger patients, a better understanding of pathogenesis, patient presentation, and guideline‐directed treatment is paramount. When operative intervention is necessary, mortality remains high at 20% to 30%. Unique TAVR infection risks present opportunities for PVE prevention, therefore, further investigation is imperative.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.