Aims The EURO-ENDO registry aimed to study the management and outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE). Methods and results Prospective cohort of 3116 adult patients (2470 from Europe, 646 from non-ESC countries), admitted to 156 hospitals in 40 countries between January 2016 and March 2018 with a diagnosis of IE based on ESC 2015 diagnostic criteria. Clinical, biological, microbiological, and imaging [echocardiography, computed tomography (CT) scan, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT)] data were collected. Infective endocarditis was native (NVE) in 1764 (56.6%) patients, prosthetic (PVIE) in 939 (30.1%), and device-related (CDRIE) in 308 (9.9%). Infective endocarditis was community-acquired in 2046 (65.66%) patients. Microorganisms involved were staphylococci in 1085 (44.1%) patients, oral streptococci in 304 (12.3%), enterococci in 390 (15.8%), and Streptococcus gallolyticus in 162 (6.6%). 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography was performed in 518 (16.6%) patients and presented with cardiac uptake (major criterion) in 222 (42.9%) patients, with a better sensitivity in PVIE (66.8%) than in NVE (28.0%) and CDRIE (16.3%). Embolic events occurred in 20.6% of patients, and were significantly associated with tricuspid or pulmonary IE, presence of a vegetation and Staphylococcus aureus IE. According to ESC guidelines, cardiac surgery was indicated in 2160 (69.3%) patients, but finally performed in only 1596 (73.9%) of them. In-hospital death occurred in 532 (17.1%) patients and was more frequent in PVIE. Independent predictors of mortality were Charlson index, creatinine > 2 mg/dL, congestive heart failure, vegetation length > 10 mm, cerebral complications, abscess, and failure to undertake surgery when indicated. Conclusion Infective endocarditis is still a life-threatening disease with frequent lethal outcome despite profound changes in its clinical, microbiological, imaging, and therapeutic profiles.

BackgroundThere is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of the radial artery (RA) as an aortocoronary conduit, with few solid data regarding long-term clinical results. We sought to determine if the use of the RA as the second arterial conduit, beside left internal thoracic artery (LITA), would improve long-term clinical outcome after CABG as compared to saphenous vein graft (SVG).MethodsBetween March 2001 and November 2003, 200 patients underwent isolated CABG and were randomized in 1:1 fashion to receive either LITA and RA grafts or LITA and SVGs. The primary end point was composite of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and need for repeat myocardial revascularization (either surgical or percutaneous).ResultsThere was no significant difference in absolute survival, with 12 deaths in each group during the study period (log rank = 0.01, p = 0.979). There were 3 and 2 cardiac deaths in RA and SVG groups, respectively. There was no difference in long-term clinical outcome between the groups (log rank = 0.450, p = 0.509). Eleven patients in RA group had one or more non-fatal events; 7 patients suffered a myocardial infarction, 9 patients underwent percutaneous coronary angioplasty, and 1 patient required redo coronary surgery. Likewise, 13 patients in SVG group had non-fatal event; 7 patients had myocardial infarction, 13 patients had percutaneous coronary intervention and 3 patients required redo coronary surgery. Angiograms were performed in 23 patients in RA group (patency rate 92 %) and 24 in SVG group (patency rate 86 %) (p = 0.67).ConclusionIn this small randomised study our data indicate that there is no difference in the 8 year clinical outcomes in relatively young patients between those having a RA or a saphenous vein graft used as a second conduit, beside LITA, for surgical myocardial revascularisation.

Background and Aims: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare the early and midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) through upper ministernotomy with conventional AVR through median sternotomy.Methods: One hundred patients undergoing elective AVR were randomized into two groups: the M group (upper ministernotomy group, n = 50) and the C group (conventional sternotomy group, n = 50). The operative data, major adverse outcomes, and postoperative variables were compared between the two groups of patients. A cross-sectional follow-up was performed 24.9 ± 5.8 months after surgery.Results: The aortic cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were significantly longer in the M group. Similar incidences of major cardiac, neurologic and renal complications were recorded in both groups. Two patients (4%) in the C group developed wound infections. The length of ICU stay was similar in both groups.The patients in the M group had a shorter hospital stay compared with the patients in the C group (7.6 ± 2 days vs 9.3 ± 4.8 days; P = 0.022). Follow-up revealed that the time period needed to reach full recovery was significantly shorter in the ministernotomy group (1.7 ± 1.2 months vs 2.8 ± 1.6 months; P = 0.001). Morbidity and mortality data did not differ between the two groups.Conclusions: There was no difference in the major outcomes between the patients who underwent upper ministernotomy and those who underwent full sternotomy.The benefits of the minimally invasive approach were the shorter hospital stay and significantly faster recovery of patients after discharge from the hospital.

Preoperative administration of either methylprednisolone or atorvastatin reduced pro-inflammatory cytokine release, improved haemodynamics, decreased postoperative atrial fibrilation rate and reduced ICU stay in patients with significantly impaired cardiac function undergoing coronary revascularization. Treatment with methylprednisolone was associated with less inotropic support requirements and reduced mechanical ventilation time.