General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

, Volume 67, Issue 12, pp 1030–1037 | Cite as

Comparison between mitral valve repair and replacement in active infective endocarditis

  • Thitipong TepsuwanEmail author
  • Chartaroon Rimsukcharoenchai
  • Apichat Tantraworasin
  • Noppon Taksaudom
  • Surin Woragidpoonpol
  • Suphachai Chuaratanaphong
  • Weerachai Nawarawong
Original Article



Mitral valve repair has been proved to provide better outcomes when compared with replacement in degenerative disease. However, it is still unclear that benefits of repair still remain in active endocarditis. Patient clinical conditions and severity of tissue destruction might limit successful durable repair.


Of all 247 patients who received surgery during active phase of native left-sided endocarditis from Jan 2006 to Dec 2017, 114 had mitral valve procedures due to active infection of mitral valve apparatus (38 repair and 76 replacement). Perioperative data and mid-term outcomes were retrospectively compared.


Mean age was 46.4 years old. Repair group had significantly less patients with NYHA class IV (18.4% vs 56.6%, p = 0.001). Both groups had preserved ejection fraction but accompanied by severe pulmonary hypertension. Major organism was streptococci (50%) and timing of surgery was 11 days after diagnosis. Bypass and cross-clamp time were similar but repair group had significantly less combined procedures. Bi-leaflet involvement was common (47.4% vs 57.6%) and valve lesions were comparable. There was 13.2% of postoperative moderate to severe mitral regurgitation in repair group without recurrent endocarditis. Repair group tended to have better 5-year survival estimates (91.6% vs 70.0%, p = 0.08) with comparable reoperation rate (7.9% vs 2.6%). By logistic regression analysis, mitral valve replacement was more likely to be performed in patients with decompensated heart failure and combined procedures.


Mitral valve repair during active endocarditis can be safely performed with good mid-term outcomes, especially in selected group of patients without extremely high surgical risk.


Active infective endocarditis Mitral valve repair Mitral valve replacement 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Braunberger E, Deloche A, Berrebi A, Abdallah F, Celestin JA, Meimoun P, et al. Very long-term results (more than 20 years) of valve repair with Carpentier’s techniques in nonrheumatic mitral valve insufficiency. Circulation. 2001;104(Suppl):I8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiBardino DJ, ElBardissi AW, McClure RS, Razo-Vasquez OA, Kelly NE, Cohn LH. Four decades of experience with mitral valve repair: analysis of differential indications, technical evolution, and long-term outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iung B, Rousseau-Paziaud J, Cormier B, Garbarz E, Fondard O, Brochet E, et al. Contemporary results of mitral valve repair for infective endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:386–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shimokawa T, Kasegawa H, Matsuyama S, Seki H, Manabe S, Fukui T, et al. Long-term outcome of mitral valve repair for infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:733–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Habib G, Lacellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: the Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3075–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG, Tleyjeh IM, Rybak MJ, et al. Infective endocarditis in adults: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132:1435–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang DH, Kim YJ, Kim SH, Sun BJ, Kim DH, Yun SC, et al. Early surgery versus conventional treatment for infective endocarditis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2466–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evans CF, Gammie JS. Surgical management of mitral valve infective endocarditis. Semin Thoracic Surg. 2011;23:232–40.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhao D, Zhang B. Are valve repair associated with better outcomes than replacements in patients with native active valve endocarditis? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19:1036–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Toyoda N, Itagaki S, Ergorova NN, Tannous H, Anyanwu AC, El-Eshmawi A, et al. Real-world outcomes of surgery for native mitral valve endocarditis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154:1906–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiefer T, Park L, Tribouilloy C, Cortes C, Castillo R, Chu V, et al. Association between valvular surgery and mortality among patients with infective endocarditis complicated by heart failure. JAMA. 2011;306:2239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prendergast BD, Tomos P. Surgery for infective endocarditis: who and when? Circulation. 2010;121:1141–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gammie JS, O’Brien SM, Griffith BP, Peterson ED. Surgical treatment of mitral valve endocarditis in north America. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80:2199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feringa HH, Shaw LJ, Poldermans D, Hoeks S, van der Wall EE, Dion RA. Mitral valve repair and replacement in endocarditis: a systematic review of literature. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:564–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruttmann E, Legit C, Poelzl G, Mueller S, Chevtchik O, Cottogni M, et al. Mitral valve repair provides improved outcome over replacement in active infective endocarditis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130:765–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Solari S, De Kerchove L, Tamer S, Aphram G, Baert J, Borsellino S, et al. Active infective mitral valve endocarditis: is a repair-oriented surgery safe and durable? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;55:256–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miura T, Hamawaki M, Hazama S, Hashizume K, Ariyoshi T, Sumi M, et al. Outcome of surgical management for active mitral native valve infective endocarditis: a collective review of 57 patients. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;62:488–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jung SH, Je GH, Choo SJ, Song H, Chung CH, Lee JW. Surgical results of active infective native mitral valve endocarditis: repair versus replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:834–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hu NY, Wan S. Repair of infected mitral valves: what have we learned? Surg Today. 2018;48:899–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee EM, Shapiro LM, Wells FC. Conservative operation for infective endocarditis of the mitral valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:1087–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aubert S, Barreda T, Acar C, Leprince P, Bonnet N, Ecochard R, et al. Mitral valve repair for commissural prolapse: surgical techniques and long term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;28:443–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thitipong Tepsuwan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chartaroon Rimsukcharoenchai
    • 1
  • Apichat Tantraworasin
    • 1
  • Noppon Taksaudom
    • 1
  • Surin Woragidpoonpol
    • 1
  • Suphachai Chuaratanaphong
    • 1
  • Weerachai Nawarawong
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiothoracic Division, Department of Surgery, Faculty of MedicineChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations