Advantage of autograft and homograft valve replacement for complex aortic valve endocarditis

Background. There are advantages to using homografts and autografts as aortic valve replacements, particularly in patients with infective endocarditis. To better define these advantages, we reviewed our 13-year experience with the surgical management of infective endocarditis involving the aortic valve and root.

Methods. From 1986 through 1998, 81 adults with aortic valve endocarditis underwent valve replacement (AVR). The mean age of the 65 men and 16 women was 44 ± 14 years. Sixty-three (78%) patients had active endocarditis at the time of operation. Non-native valve endocarditis was present in 29 (36%) patients, in 9 of whom the infection was a recurrence. Aortic valve replacements were performed with 46 homografts (homo-AVR), 25 autografts (Ross-AVR), and 10 prosthetic valves (prosth-AVR). Among Ross-AVR and homo-AVR patients, 11 required mitral valve replacement or repair (homo-Ross DVR). Follow-up was 90% complete within 2 years of the end of the study with a mean of 3.7 ± 3.4 years.

Results. Early mortality was 16% (13 of 81 patients). This was 12% (3 of 25 patients) for Ross-AVR, 17% (8 of 46 patients) for homo-AVR, and 20% (2 of 10 patients) for prosth-AVR. Overall late mortality was 10% (7 of 68 patients) with a valve-related late mortality of 7% (5 of 68 patients). Actuarial survival at 5 years was 88% ± 9% in Ross-AVR, 69% ± 11% in homo-AVR, and 29% ± 22% in prosth-AVR (p = 0.03). Endocarditis recurred in 12.5% (1 of 8 patients) with prosth-AVR and 3% (2 of 60 patients) in homo-Ross AVR.

Conclusions. Valve replacement in the presence of native and prosthetic endocarditis remains a formidable challenge. Autografts and homografts are the preferred replacement aortic valves for these patients even if concomitant mitral valve replacement is required, and risk of valve-related death or recurrent endocarditis is low at medium-term follow-up.