Interdisciplinary endocarditis team : Structure, evidence and clinical benefit

Right-sided infective endocarditis: Insights into the forgotten valve

Infective endocarditis is very uncommon in children; however, when it does arise, it can lead to severe consequences. The biggest risk factor for paediatric infective endocarditis today is underlying congenital heart defects. The most common causative organisms are Staphylococcus aureus and the viridans group of streptococci. The spectrum of symptoms varies widely in children and this produces difficulty in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Infective endocarditis in children is reliant on the modified Duke criteria. The use of blood cultures remains the most effective microbiological test for pathogen identification. However, in blood culture-negative infective endocarditis, serology testing and IgG titres are more effective for diagnosis. Imaging techniques used include echocardiograms, computed tomography and positron emission tomography. Biomarkers utilised in diagnosis are C-reactive protein, with recent literature reviewing the use of interleukin-15 and C-C motif chemokine ligand for reliable risk prediction. The American Heart Association (AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines have been compared to describe the differences in the approach to infective endocarditis in children. Medical intervention involves the use of antimicrobial treatment and surgical interventions include the repair and replacement of cardiac valves. Quality of life is highly likely to improve from surgical intervention.Conclusion: Over the past decades, there have been great advancements in clinical practice to improve outcomes in patients with infective endocarditis. Nonetheless, further work is required to better investigative and manage such high risk cohort. What is Known: • The current diagnostic techniques including 'Duke's criteria' for paediatric infective endocarditis diagnosis • The current management guidelines utilised for paediatric infective endocarditis What is New: • The long-term outcomes of patients that underwent medical and surgical intervention • The quality of life of paediatric patients that underwent medical and surgical intervention.

Since publication of Duke criteria for infective endocarditis (IE) diagnosis, several modifications have been proposed. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Duke-ISCVID (International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases) 2023 criteria compared to prior versions from 2000 (Duke-Li 2000) and 2015 (Duke-ESC [European Society for Cardiology] 2015). This study was conducted at 2 university hospitals between 2014 and 2022 among patients with suspected IE. A case was classified as IE (final IE diagnosis) by the Endocarditis Team. Sensitivity for each version of the Duke criteria was calculated among patients with confirmed IE based on pathological, surgical, and microbiological data. Specificity for each version of the Duke criteria was calculated among patients with suspected IE for whom IE diagnosis was ruled out. In total, 2132 episodes with suspected IE were included, of which 1101 (52%) had final IE diagnosis. Definite IE by pathologic criteria was found in 285 (13%), 285 (13%), and 345 (16%) patients using the Duke-Li 2000, Duke-ESC 2015, or the Duke-ISCVID 2023 criteria, respectively. IE was excluded by histopathology in 25 (1%) patients. The Duke-ISCVID 2023 clinical criteria showed a higher sensitivity (84%) compared to previous versions (70%). However, specificity of the new clinical criteria was lower (60%) compared to previous versions (74%). The Duke-ISCVID 2023 criteria led to an increase in sensitivity compared to previous versions. Further studies are needed to evaluate items that could increase sensitivity by reducing the number of IE patients misclassified as possible, but without having detrimental effect on specificity of Duke criteria.

Beyond the Eurozone in cardiovascular nursing research: Filling the scatter plot

HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

(1) Background: Granulicatella adiacens is a former nutritionally variant streptococci (NVS). NVS infective endocarditis (IE) is generally characterized by a higher rate of morbidity and mortality, partially due to difficulties in choosing the most adequate microbiological culture method and the most effective treatment strategy, and partially due to higher rates of complications, such as heart failure, peripheral septic embolism, and peri-valvular abscess, as well as a higher rate of valve replacement. Depending on the affected valve (native valve endocarditisNVE, or prosthetic valve endocarditisPVE), the American Heart Association (AHA) 2015 treatment guidelines (GLs) suggest penicillin G, ampicillin, or ceftriaxone plus gentamicin (2 weeks for NVE and up to 6 weeks for PVE), while vancomycin alone may be a reasonable alternative in patients who are intolerant of β-lactam therapy. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2023 GLs recommend treating NVE with penicillin G, ceftriaxone, or vancomycin for 6 weeks, suggesting combined with an aminoglycoside (AG) for at least the first 2 weeks only for PVE; likewise, the same recommendations for IE due to Enterococcus faecalis. (2) Methods: Starting from the case of a 51-year-old man with G. adiacens aortic bio-prosthesis IE who was successfully treated with aortic valve replacement combined with double beta-lactams, an AG-sparing regimen, we performed microbiology tests in order to validate this potential treatment change. (3) Results: As for E. faecalis IE, we found that the combination of ampicillin plus cephalosporines (like ceftriaxone or ceftobiprole) showed a synergistic effect in vitro, probably due to wider binding to penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs), thus contributing to enhanced bacterial killing and good clinical outcome, as well as avoiding the risk of nephrotoxicity due to AG association therapy. (4) Conclusions: Further studies are required to confirm this hypothesis, but double beta-lactams and an adequate sourcecontrol could be a choice in treating G. adiacens IE.

Infective endocarditis (IE) has become a ‘surgical disease’ during the last decade since approximately half of all patients are currently operated on during the active phase of the disease (early...

Background It is unclear to what extent the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC), 2018 American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), 2016 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines differ in assigning levels of evidence and classes of recommendations (LOE/class) to lipid-lowering treatment recommendations in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Purpose To compare LOE/class from four commonly used guidelines at population level. Methods A total of 7262 participants, aged 45–75 years of age and without history of CVD, from the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study were included. Per guideline, proportions of the population recommended statin therapy by LOE/class, sensitivity and specificity, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years (NNT10y) were calculated. Results Mean age was 61.1 (SD 6.9) years, and 58.2% were women. ESC, ACC/AHA, USPSTF and CCS strongly recommended statin use for a respective 33.8%, 48.1%, and 40.2% and 73.0% of the eligible population based on high-quality evidence, while in an additional 55.3%, 7.1%, 8.4% and 9.2% of participants statins use could or should be considered based on varying LOE/class. The sensitivity for treatment recommendations supported with strong, high quality evidence was 61.6% for ESC (“IA”), 74.6% for ACC/AHA (“IA or IB”), 69.4% for USPSTF (“USPSTF-B”) and 92.5% for CCS (“strong”). Specificity was highest for the ACC/AHA at 46.8% and lowest for ESC at 11.4%. Estimated NNT10y for those with the strongest LOE/class were comparable across all guidelines, ranging from 18 to 26 for moderate-intensity statin use, and 11 to 16 for high-intensity statin use. NNT10y reflective of recommendations supported with moderate strength of LOE/class varied substantially among guidelines for both moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin use, ranging from 33 for ESC and USPSTF to 91 for CCS. Conclusions Assigned LOE/class varied greatly among four clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention of CVD. Efforts for harmonized and comparable evidence grading system for clinical practice guidelines in primary prevention of CVD may reduce ambiguity, and reinforce updated evidence-based recommendations for appropriate treatment of populations for whom clear evidence for benefit of statin use is available. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria for IE were recently introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes (Table 1). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the new criteria with the 2000 modified Duke criteria, the 2015 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria and a clinically adjudicated reference standard by a panel of international experts on IE.Table 1:Overview of changes in criteria from 2000 modified Duke to 2023 Duke-ISCVIDAdapted from: Fowler et al, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2023 Methods The study population consisted of consecutively enrolled patients suspected to have IE and discussed by the IE team of the Amsterdam University Medical Center (AMC) between October 2016 and March 2021. A panel of international experts on IE assigned a final diagnosis, which served as the reference standard. We compared the definite classification of the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria against this reference standard. We also evaluated accuracy of the new criteria, excluding data obtained from cardiac surgery and pathology (“Clinical Criteria”). Lastly, we quantified the added value of the proposed changes to the criteria, and compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID to previous criteria using the McNemar test. We performed sensitivity analyses in patients who underwent cardiac surgery and patients who underwent TEE. Results 595 patients with suspected IE were included, of whom 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE. 111 patients (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, 48 (8%) had cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than the modified Duke or ESC criteria (84.2 vs 74.9 vs 80%,respectively, p < 0.001 for ISCVID vs ESC criteria) without significant loss of specificity (Table 2). After excluding cardiac surgery/pathology results, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID Clinical Criteria also had significantly better sensitivity than the modified Duke and ESC criteria, again without losing specificity. The changes in the 'major microbiological' and 'imaging' criteria had the most impact (Figure 1). Findings were robust in sensitivity analyses (Table 3). When classifying ‘definite’ and ‘possible’ IE as a positive test, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria had 99% sensitivity compared to the reference standard, but specificity decreased to 21%.Table 2:Diagnostic accuracy of modified Duke, ESC and Duke-ISCVID criteria Sensitivity and specificity are against the reference standard (adjudication panel). The Clinical Criteria classification is the Duke-ISCVID classification when results from surgery or post-mortem studies are not used to determine classification.Table 3:Sensitivity analyses of accuracy of Duke-ISCVID criteria In the Definite + Possible analysis, patients with possible IE according to the Duke-ISCVID criteria were also considered as having IE. All comparisons are against the reference standard (adjudication panel). Conclusion In this cohort, the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients suspected of IE. Added value of new Duke-ISCVID criteria compared to modified Duke criteria Each point (red square for sensitivity, blue circle for specificity) provides the diagnostic accuracy measure for the 2000 modified Duke Criteria with addition of a specific change from the Duke-ISCVID criteria. The horizontal bars represent the 95% confidence interval for the point estimate. The top points represent the modified Duke criteria without addition, the bottom points are the complete Duke-ISCVID criteria. Disclosures Larry M. Baddour, MD, Boston Scientific: Advisor/Consultant|Roivant Sciences: Advisor/Consultant Arnold S. Bayer, MD, Akagera Medicines: Grant/Research Support|ContraFect Corporation: Grant/Research Support Emanuele Durante Mangoni, MD,, PhD, Advanz pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Advanz pharma: Grant/Research Support|Advanz pharma: Honoraria|Angelini: Grant/Research Support|Angelini: Honoraria|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech: Board Member|Genentech: Honoraria|Infectopharm: Grant/Research Support|Menarini: Board Member|Menarini: Honoraria|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Board Member|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Honoraria|Roche: Advisor/Consultant|Roche: Board Member|Roche: Honoraria Thomas L. Holland, MD, Aridis: Advisor/Consultant|Basilea Pharmaceutica: Advisor/Consultant|Karius: Advisor/Consultant|Lysovant: Advisor/Consultant Adolf W. Karchmer, MD, Karius: Grant/Research Support|Up To Date: Honoraria Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, Amphliphi Biosciences, Integrated Biotherapeutics; C3J, Armata, Valanbio; Akagera, Aridis, Roche, Astra Zeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech, Regeneron, Deep Blue, Basilea, Janssen;: Grant/Research Support|Infectious Diseases Society of America: Honoraria|MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck; Medical Biosurfaces; Locus; Affinergy; Contrafect; Karius;: Grant/Research Support|Novartis, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., MedImmune, Bayer, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny,: Advisor/Consultant|Sepsis diagnostic: Patent pending|UpToDate: Royalties|Valanbio and ArcBio: Stock Options

ostoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common adverse event following cardiac and noncardiac surgery and has been associated with late-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke. 1,2 Current guidelines do not provide recommendations on the optimal duration of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and screening strategies in POAF due to limited data. We sought to evaluate the real-world outpatient management of POAF.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a complex condition associated with high morbidity and mortality. The creation of multidisciplinary teams (endocarditis team) has been shown to improve its management and prognosis. We analysed the impact of the formal implementation of a multidisciplinary IE committee (coIE) in a tertiary care hospital. Single-centre quasi-experimental study comparing two periods: before (2010-2015) and after (2017-2021) the implementation of the coIE. The coIE met weekly (and on demand when necessary) to make decisions regarding medical and surgical management in patients with definite or possible IE, following a protocol based on international guidelines. We included 92 and 97 patients in the pre- and post-intervention periods, respectively. Demographic characteristics, predisposing factors, and types of IE were similar. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients with surgical indication who underwent surgery (30.2 % vs 39.1 %, respectively; p = 0.317), in-hospital mortality (27.2 % vs 34.0 %; p = 0.308), or one-year mortality (32.6 % vs 45.4 %; p = 0.073). The median (interquartile range) time from diagnosis to surgery decreased in the post-intervention period (11.5 [6.3-25.3] vs 7 [3-10] days; p = 0.026). The diagnosis of embolic events was more frequent in this period (46.7 % vs 58.8 %; p = 0.098). Although we did not observe a significant impact on mortality among patients with definite IE after the implementation of an endocarditis team, we noted a favourable trend in intermediate indicators of healthcare quality.

HRS/EHRA Expert Consensus on the Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs): Description of Techniques, Indications, Personnel, Frequency and Ethical Considerations: Developed in partnership with the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); and in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the Heart

<i>Circulation</i> : Clinical Summaries

Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) continues to expand with increasing applications and technological advancements. Growing evidence on the clinical utility of CCT necessitates evaluating how this knowledge is incorporated into European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. We aimed to provide a comprehensive comparison of CCT indications between ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines to identify areas of consensus and divergence in the current landscape of CCT utilization. ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines were systematically reviewed for CCT recommendations. The class of recommendation (COR) and level of evidence (LOE) were compared using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. The latest ESC guidelines included 40 recommendations regarding CCT: 18 (45%) COR-I, 14 (35%) COR-IIa, 6 (15%) COR-IIb, and 2 (5%) COR-III. Two (5%) recommendation had LOE-A, 20 (50%) had LOE-B, and 18 (45%) had LOE-C. The latest ACC/AHA guidelines consisted of 54 recommendations: 18 (33.3%) COR-I, 28 (51.9%) COR-IIa, 6 (11.1%) COR-IIb, and 2 (3.7%) COR-III. Two recommendations were assigned LOE-A (3.7%), 30 (55.6%) were classified as LOE-B, and 22 (40.7%) as LOE-C. ACC/AHA guidelines had a significantly higher proportion of COR-IIa recommendations (P = 0.04) and similar proportions of COR-I and COR-IIb recommendations (P = 0.28; P = 0.76), compared to ESC guidelines. The proportion of LOE-B and LOE-C recommendations weren’t statistically different (P = 0.54; P = 0.84). ACC/AHA guidelines included more CCT recommendations with a higher COR and LOE than ESC guidelines. These findings highlight the need for continued research and consensus-building to establish standardized, evidence-based CCT recommendations in clinical practice.

Let’s talk about sex