Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290998

Clinical presentation, microbiology, and prognostic factors of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Lessons learned from a large prospective registry

Antonio Ramos-Martínez 1,2,3,*, Fernando Domínguez 4, Patricia Muñoz 4,5,6,7, Mercedes Marín 5,6, Álvaro Pedraz 8, Mª Carmen Fariñas 9,10,11, Valentín Tascón 12, Arístides de Alarcón 13,14,15, Raquel Rodríguez-García 16,17, José María Miró 18,19, Josune Goikoetxea 20, Guillermo Ojeda-Burgos 21, Francesc Escrihuela-Vidal 19,22,23, Jorge Calderón-Parra 1,2; On behalf of the GAMES investigators
Editor: Redoy Ranjan24
PMCID: PMC10490835  PMID: 37682961

Abstract

Background

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is a serious infection associated with high mortality that often requires surgical treatment.

Methods

Study on clinical characteristics and prognosis of a large contemporary prospective cohort of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) that included patients diagnosed between January 2008 and December 2020. Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors associated with in-hospital mortality was performed.

Results

The study included 1354 cases of PVE. The median age was 71 years with an interquartile range of 62–77 years and 66.9% of the cases were male. Patients diagnosed during the first year after valve implantation (early onset) were characterized by a higher proportion of cases due to coagulase-negative staphylococci and Candida and more perivalvular complications than patients detected after the first year (late onset). In-hospital mortality of PVE in this series was 32.6%; specifically, it was 35.4% in the period 2008–2013 and 29.9% in 2014–2020 (p = 0.031). Variables associated with in-hospital mortality were: Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.08–1.23), intracardiac abscess (OR:1.78, 95% CI:1.30–2.44), acute heart failure related to PVE (OR: 3. 11, 95% CI: 2.31–4.19), acute renal failure (OR: 3.11, 95% CI:1.14–2.09), septic shock (OR: 5.56, 95% CI:3.55–8.71), persistent bacteremia (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.21–2.83) and surgery indicated but not performed (OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.49–2.89). In-hospital mortality in patients with surgical indication according to guidelines was 31.3% in operated patients and 51.3% in non-operated patients (p<0.001). In the latter group, there were more cases of advanced age, comorbidity, hospital acquired PVE, PVE due to Staphylococcus aureus, septic shock, and stroke.

Conclusions

Not performing cardiac surgery in patients with PVE and surgical indication, according to guidelines, has a significant negative effect on in-hospital mortality. Strategies to better discriminate patients who can benefit most from surgery would be desirable.

Introduction

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) constitutes 20–30% of cases of infective endocarditis (IE) and is associated with high mortality [1, 2]. The lesser detection of signs of PVE on imaging techniques, such as vegetations and/or periannular complications typical of IE, and the possible visualization of residual findings using these techniques, which could be explained by the previous valve surgery itself, makes it more challenging to establish an adequate diagnosis in cases of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) compared to native valve endocarditis (NVE) [14].

The frequent extension of the infection around the prosthetic valve implies a greater challenge in surgical treatment compared to NVE [3, 57]. Patients who present surgical indication but do not undergo surgery are a matter of great concern that should be carefully analyzed for its prognostic implications [7, 8]. The percentage of patients with PVE and surgical indication who ultimately do not undergo surgery was higher than 40% in some series [9]. Among the reasons given for discouraging surgical intervention in these patients are severe sepsis, cerebral embolism, cardiogenic shock, and acute renal failure [10]. Improving knowledge of the prognostic variables of patients with PVE and the causes of disregard for surgical treatment seem to be important aspects to optimize the clinical management of these patients [1113].

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical presentation and prognosis of patients with PVE. Specifically, we sought to explore the clinical characteristics and the prognosis of patients with surgical indication according to the guidelines who did not undergo surgery. To achieve this objective, we conducted an analysis of patients included in a large contemporary cohort of IE cases.

Patients and methods

From January 2008 to December 2020, consecutive patients with a definite diagnosis IE, according to Duke’s modified criteria, were prospectively included. These patients received treatment in a group of Spanish hospitals, collectively serving approximately 30% of the nation’s population. At each center, a multidisciplinary team completes a standardized form with the IE episode and a follow-up form after one year of the episode. The register included sections for demographic, clinical, microbiological, echocardiographic, management and prognostic information. The cohort registration received approval of regional and local ethics committees. Specifically, the Ethics and Clinical Research Board of one of participant hospitals approved the study protocol and publication of data (Gregorio Marañón Hospital in Madrid, number 18/07). Informed consent was obtained in cases where the patient could be adequately informed. For patients in coma or incapable of giving consent, the ethics committees waived the requirement for investigators to obtain consent to avoid patient inclusion bias. Data and samples were collected from January 2008 to December 2021. Subsequently, the study data were analyzed during the years 2022 and 2023. The authors did not have access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection.

Definitions

General variables

General definitions correspond to those published in other studies on endocarditis [14, 15]. Healthcare-associated infections were defined as previously published [16]. Patients were categorized into either early or late PVE, depending on whether the diagnosis was made before or after the first year following prosthetic valve implantation, respectively [1, 12]. Persistent bacteremia was defined as persistence of positive blood cultures after 7 days of appropriate antibiotic treatment initiation. Systemic embolization included embolism to any major arterial vessel, excluding stroke, which was defined by acute neurological deficit of vascular origin lasting >24 hours. Episodes with neurological symptoms lasting less than 24 hours, but showing imaging scans suggestive of infarction, were classified as stroke [17].

Exposures of interest

Surgical indications followed the latest current European guidelines available at the time of diagnosis [2, 18, 19]. Particular focus was directed to identifying patients with surgical indications and, within this group, those who were not operated on.

Outcomes of interest

In-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality were defined as death from any cause during hospital admission or within the 365 days following admission in which PVE was treated, respectively. Recurrent IE was defined as a new episode of IE during the first year of follow-up [20].

Patients

The study analyzed demographic, clinical, echocardiographic, and treatment data of the included patients, as well as morbidity and mortality both at admission and during the first year of follow-up. Endocarditis on transcatheter aortic valve replacement and infection of non-valve aortic graft were not included in the study due to their distinctive clinical characteristics [21, 22]. Patients with atrial or ventricular septal defect closure or cardiovascular implantable electronic devices infection were included only if they had a concomitantly infected prosthetic valve.

Statistical analysis

Categoric variables are expressed as absolute numbers and percentages. Quantitative variables are expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables were compared using χ2 test or Fisher test when necessary. Quantitative variables were compared using Mann-Whitney’s U. In the comparison of risk factors for mortality, those variables with p < 0.10 in univariant analysis and that were considered clinically significant, were included in a multivariate logistic regression model, with a maximum of one variable for every 10 events (deaths). The goodness of fit of the final multivariate mode was assessed again by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Adjusted odds ratios and its 95% confident interval are provided. Bilateral p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 25 software (SPSS INC., Chicago, Illinois, USA). The data on which this study is based are available upon reasonable request through the technical office of the research network [(Spanish collaboration on endocarditis (GAMES)] which can be contacted via this e-mail: games08@gmail.com.

Results

During the study period, a total of 4454 consecutive cases with definitive IE were identified. Among them, 1354 cases (30.4%) corresponded to PVE (Fig 1). Out of the PVE cases, 492 (36.3%) were diagnosed within the first year after prosthetic valve implantation (early PVE) while 862 cases (63.6%) were diagnosed after the first year (late PVE). The proportion of PVE cases over the total of IE cases was 29.7% between 2008 and 2013 (672 out of 2264 cases) and 31.4% between 2014 and 2020 [(682 out of 2190 cases); p = 0.290]). Among the PVE cases, 633 involved mechanical valves (47%), and 718 involved biological valves (53.9%). The number of infected mechanical prostheses in the mitral position was 354 out of 515 prosthetic valves (68,7%) and 358 out of 969 prosthetic valves in the aortic position (36.9%; p<0.001). Simultaneous involvement of prosthetic valves in both the aortic and mitral positions occurred in 173 cases (12.7%).

Fig 1. Flowchart of patients presenting with definite or possible infective endocarditis (IE) according to the type of affected valve (games cohort 2008–2020).

Fig 1

ICD: implantable cardioverter defibrillator. NVAG: non-valve aortic graft. TAVR: transcatheter aortic valve replacement. PVE: prosthetic valve endocarditis.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with PVE

Patients with PVE were older, had a higher comorbidity burden, a greater proportion of patients with surgical indications who did not undergo surgery, and higher mortality compared to patients with NVE (Table 1). The indication of surgery of the episodes of PVE compared to episodes of NVE are shown in Table 1S in the S1 Data. Table 2S in the S1 Data presents a comparison of clinical characteristics between patients with only aortic or mitral prosthetic valve involvement. Patients with aortic PVE were older, had a higher incidence of early PVE, a higher frequency of coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), and more intracardiac complications than patients with mitral PVE.

Table 1. Characteristics of patients with native valve endocarditis compared patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis.

Native (n = 2769) Prosthetic (n = 1354) Overall (N = 4123) p-value
Age. years (IQR) 66 (53–76) 71 (62–77) 68 (57–76) <0.001
Male gender 1897 (68.5) 903 (66.9) 2800 (67.9) 0.240
Hospital-acquired 590 (21.3) 515 (38.0) 1105 (26.8) <0.001
Site of infection
    Aortic 1386 (50.1) 969 (71.6) 2355 (57.1) <0.001
    Mitral 1469 (53.1) 515 (38.0) 1984 (48.1) <0.001
Comorbidity
    Coronary disease 556 (20.1) 471 (34.7) 1027 (24.9) <0.001
    Chronic heart failure 661 (23.9) 609 (44.9) 1270 (30.8) <0.001
    Intravenous drug user 109 (3.9) 10 (0.7) 119 (2.8) <0.001
    Cerebrovascular disease 282 (10.2) 235 (17.3) 517 (12.5) <0.001
    Chronic renal failure 664 (24.0) 357 (26.4) 1021 (24.7) 0.095
    Chronic liver disease 339 (12.2) 95 (7.1) 434 (10.5) <0.001
    Age-adjusted Charlson index (IQR) 4 (3–6) 5 (3–7) 5 (3–7) <0.001
Microbiology
    Gram-positive bacteria
        Staphylococcus aureus 766 (27.7) 208 (15.4) 974 (23.6) <0.001
        MRSA 116 (4.1) 42 (3.1) 158 (3.8) 0.088
        Coagulase-negative staphylococci  285 (10.3) 437 (32.3) 722 (17.5) <0.001
        Enterococcus spp 441 (15.9) 217 (16.0) 658 (15.9) 0.934
        Streptococcus spp 932 (33.7) 262 (19.4) 1194 (28.9) <0.001
    Gram-negative bacilli 91 (3.3) 63 (4.7) 154 (3.7) 0.030
    Anaerobic bacteria 16 (0.6) 30 (2.2) 46 (1.1) <0.001
    Fungi
        Candida spp 31 (1.1) 33 (2.4) 64 (1.5) 0.001
        Other fungi 10 (0.4) 2 (0.1) 12 (0.3) 0.358
Polymicrobial 34 (1.2) 18 (1.3) 52 (1.2) 0.784
Other microorganisms 65 (2.3) 36 (2.7) 101 (2.4) 0.544
Negative cultures (no growth) 78 (2.8) 37 (2.7) 115 (2.7) 0.877
Echocardiographic findings
    Vegetation 2359 (85.2) 928 (68.5) 3287 (79.7) <0.001
    Intracardiac complications 971 (35.1) 569 (42.0) 1540 (37.3) <0.001
        Valve perforation or rupture 633 (22.9) 50 (3.6) 683 (16.5) <0.001
        Pseudoaneurysm 144 (5.2) 148 (10.9) 292 (7.0) <0.001
        Perivalvular abscess 366 (13.2) 460 (34.0) 826 (20.0) <0.001
        Intracardiac fistula 59 (2.1) 63 (4.6) 122 (2.9) <0.001
Clinical course
    Acute heart failure 1271 (45.9) 542 (40.0) 1813 (43.9) <0.001
    Persistent bacteremia 326 (11.8) 153 (11.3) 479 (11.6) 0.656
    Stroke 602 (21.7) 320 (23.6) 922 (22.3) 0.171
    Embolism a 721 (26.0) 285 (21.0) 1006 (24.3) <0.001
    Mycotic aneurism 75 (2.7) 30 (2.2) 105 (2.5) 0.345
    Acute renal failure 948 (34.2) 571 (42.1) 1519 (36.8) <0.001
    Septic shock 376 (13.6) 183 (13.5) 559 (13.5) 0.955
Surgical indication 1887 (68.1) 1009 (74.5) 2896 (70.2) <0.001
    Surgery performed b 1306 (69.2) 650 (64.4) 1956 (67.5) 0.009
    Surgery indicated. not performed 581 (30.8) 359 (35.6) 940 (32.4) <0.001
In-hospital mortality 709 (25.6) 442 (32.6) 1151 (27.9) <0.001
First year mortality 876 (31.6) 507 (37.4) 1383 (33.5) <0.001
Recurrence c 28 (1.3) 21 (2.3) 49 (1.6) 0.063

IQR: Interquartile range. MRSA: methicillin-resistant S. aureus.

a Excluding cases with stroke.

b Percentages calculated considering only patients with surgical indications.

c during the first year after diagnosis calculated on patients discharged from the hospital (n = 2972).

Seventy cases (5.1%) showed concomitant involvement of native and prosthetic valves.

CoNS were the most common bacteria causing PVE in this series. The proportion of CoNS PVE cases increased from 30.5% in the first period (2008–2013) to 34% in the second period (2014–2020), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.167, Table 3S in the S1 Data). In addition, CoNS were identified in 43.5% of early PVE cases during the first period (2008–2013) and in 54.3% during the second period (2014–2020; p = 0.017). Staphylococcus aureus caused 20% of PVE cases on mechanical valves and 11.3% on biological valves (p<0.0019. in cases due to CoNS, this proportion was 27.8% and 36.2%, respectively (p = 0.001).

In-hospital mortality of PVE in this series was 32.6% (Table 1). Table 2 shows the characteristics of the patients according to in-hospital mortality. Variables independently associated with in-hospital mortality were age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.08–1.23), intracardiac abscess (OR:1.78, 95% CI:1.30–2.44), acute heart failure related to PVE (OR: 3. 11, 95% CI: 2.31–4.19), acute renal failure (OR: 3.11, 95% CI:1.14–2.09), septic shock (OR: 5.56, 95% CI:3.55–8.71), persistent bacteremia (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.21–2.83) and surgery indicated but not performed (OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.49–2.89) (Table 3). Given the significant association between septic shock and in-hospital mortality, a multivariate analysis was performed without this variable (Table 4). The result was very similar, except that mitral involvement and PVE due to S. aureus were identified as independent prognostic variables in this second analysis, and persistent bacteremia was no longer statistically significant.

Table 2. Characteristics of patients with PVE according to in-hospital mortality.

Survivors (n = 912) Non-survivors (n = 442) p-value
Age. years (IQR) 69 (61–76) 73 (65–78) <0.001
Male gender 623 (68.3) 280 (63.3) 0.069
Hospital-acquired 313 (34.3) 202 (45.7) <0.001
Site of infection
Aortic 645 (70.7) 324 (73.3) 0.324
Mitral 322 (35.3) 193 (43.7) 0.003
Tricuspid 13 (1.4) 3 (0.7) 0.293
Pulmonary 25 (2.7) 2 (0.5) 0.005
Comorbidity
Chronic heart failure 380 (41.6) 229 (51.8) <0.001
Diabetes mellitus 250 (27.4) 155 (35.0) 0.004
Intravenous drug user 10 (1.0) 0 -
Peripheral vascular disease 70 (7.6) 57 (12.8) 0.002
Cerebrovascular disease 153 (16.6) 82 (18.5) 0.419
Neoplasia 139 (15.2) 77 (17.4) 0.304
Chronic renal failure 207 (22.7) 150 (33.9) <0.001
Chronic liver disease 55 (6.0) 40 (9.0) 0.041
Congenital heart disease 68 (7.4) 16 (3.6) 0.006
Age-adjusted Charlson index (IQR) 4 (3–6) 5 (4–7) <0.001
Early PVE 319 (35.0) 173 (39.1) 0.135
Late PVE 593 (65.0) 269 (60.9) 0.135
Microbiology
Gram-positive bacteria
 Staphylococcus aureus 105 (11.5) 103 (23.3) <0.001
 CoNS 285 (31.3) 152 (34.4) 0.247
Enterococcus 161 (17.7) 56 (12.7) 0.019
Streptococcus 199 (21.8) 63 (14.3) 0.001
Gram-negative bacilli 45 (4.9) 18 (4.1) 0.480
Anaerobic bacteria 24 (2.6) 6 (1.4) 0.135
Fungi
Candida 17 (1.9) 16 (3.6) 0.049
 Other fungal species 1 (0.1) 1 (0.2) 0.546
Polymicrobial 11 (1.2) 7 (1.6) 0.569
Other microorganisms 27 (3.0) 9 (2.0) 0.322
Echocardiographic findings
  Vegetation 615 (67.4) 313 (70.8) 0.209
  Intracardiac complications 344 (37.7) 225 (50.9) <0.001
 Valve perforation or rupture 25 (2.7) 25 (5.6) 0.008
 Pseudoaneurysm 90 (9.8) 58 (13.1) 0.072
 Perivalvular abscess 286 (31.4) 174 (39.4) 0.012
 Intracardiac fistula 40 (4.3) 23 (5.5) 0.503
Clinical course
  Acute heart failure 271 (29.7) 271 (61.3) <0.001
  Persistent bacteremia 86 (9.4) 67 (15.1) 0.002
  Stroke 176 (19.2) 144 (32.5) <0.001
  Embolism a 192 (21.0) 93 (21.0) 0.996
  Acute renal failure 317 (34.7) 254 (57.4) <0.001
  Septic shock 43 (4.7) 140 (31.6) <0.001
Surgical indication 622 (68.2) 387 (87.6) <0.001
 Surgery performed b 447 (71.9) 203 (52.4) 0.238
 Surgery indicated not performed 175 (28.1) 184 (47.6) <0.001

IQR: Interquartile range.

a Excluding cases with stroke.

b Percentages calculated considering only patients with surgical indications.

Table 3. Multivariate analysis of clinical factors of PVE associated with in-hospital mortality.

  OR CI 95% p-value
Age, years 1.08 0.99–1.22 0.255
Mitral affected 1.33 0.97–1.81 0.070
Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity, points 1.15 1.08–1.23 <0.001
Staphylococcus aureus 1.38 0.91–2.09 0.120
Acute heart failure 3.11 2.31–4.19 <0.001
Persistent bacteremia 1.85 1.21–2.83 0.005
Septic Shock 5.56 3.55–8.71 <0.001
Acute renal failure 1.55 1.14–2.09 0.005
Nosocomial 1.23 0.91–1.67 0.165
Intracardiac Abscess 1.78 1.30–2.44 <0.001
Surgery indicated. not performed 2.08 1.49–2.89 <0.001

Table 4. Multivariate analysis of clinical factors of PVE associated with in-hospital mortality without considering “septic shock”.

OR CI 95% p-value
Age, years 1.07 .99–1.01 0.226
Mitral affected 1.36 1.03–1.78 0.026
Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity, points 1.12 1.05–1.19 <0.001
Staphylococcus aureus 1.86 1.31–2.64 <0.001
Acute heart failure 3.08 2.37–4.01 <0.001
Persistent bacteremia 1.46 .99–1.01 0.055
Acute renal failure 1.82 1.39–2.37 <0.01
Nosocomial 1.35 1.03–1.76 0.028
Intracardiac Abscess 1.66 1.26–2.20 <0.001
Surgery indicated. not performed 2.34 1.75–3.11 <0.001

A comparison of patient characteristics was made according to the period in which the diagnosis was made (2008–2013 vs. 2014–2020; Table 3S in the S1 Data). It was evident that comorbidity, late PVE, intracardiac complications and septic shock were more frequent in patients treated during the second period (2014–2020). Additionally, in-hospital mortality in the second period (29.9%) was lower than in the first period (35.4%, p = 0.031).

Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with surgical indication that were not operated on

One thousand and nine patients presented surgical indication (74.5%). Six hundred fifty patients (64.4%) underwent surgery, and 359 patients (35.6%) were managed conservatively, with antibiotic treatment only (Table 5). Patients who did not undergo surgery were older, had higher frequency of chronic lung disease, chronic heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, neoplasia, previous renal failure and chronic liver disease with a significant difference in the age-adjusted Charlson index 6 points (IQR: 4–8 points) versus 4 points (IQR: 3–6 points; p = <0.001), respectively. Nosocomial acquisition of infection, PVE due to S. aureus, septic shock and brain involvement were also more frequent among the non-operated patients (Table 2). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher among patients who did not undergo surgery (51.3%) compared to those who underwent surgery (31.3%, p<0.001). Fig 2 shows the survival during the first year in patients without surgical indication, with surgical indication who underwent surgery and with surgical indication who did not undergo surgery.

Table 5. Characteristics of patients with PVE and surgical indication according to whether the patient underwent surgery.

Surgery performed (n = 650) Surgery not performed (n = 359) p-value
Age. years (IQR) 69 (59–75) 73 (65–79) <0.001
Male gender 449 (69.0) 233 (64.9) 0.175
Hospital-acquired 247 (38.0) 158 (44.0) 0.062
Site of infection
    Aortic 477 (73.4) 264 (73.5) 0.958
    Mitral 229 (35.2) 147 (40.9) 0.072
    Tricuspid 7 (1.1) 8 (2.2) 0.148
    Pulmonary 11 (1.7) 9 (2.5) 0.374
Comorbidity
    Chronic heart failure 273 (42.0) 195 (54.3) 0.001
    Diabetes mellitus 186 (28.6) 107 (29.8) 0.690
    Intravenous drug user 5 (0.8) 1 (0.3) 0.571
    Peripheral vascular disease 49 (7.5) 42 (11.7) 0.027
    Cerebrovascular disease 111 (17.0) 60 (16.7) 0.883
    Neoplasia 74 (11.3) 75 (20.8) <0.001
    Chronic renal failure 137 (21.1) 125 (34.8) <0.001
    Chronic liver disease 35 (5.3) 42 (11.7) <0.001
    Congenital heart disease 53 (8.1) 18 (5.0) 0.062
    Age-adjusted Charlson index (IQR) 4 (3–6) 6 (4–8) <0.001
Early PVE 255 (39.2) 134 (37.3) 0.552
Late PVE 395 (60.8) 225 (62.7) 0.552
Microbiology
    Gram-positive bacteria
     Staphylococcus aureus 86 (13.2) 81 (22.6) <0.001
     CoNS 245 (37.7) 120 (33.4) 0.177
     Enterococcus 88 (13.5) 51 (14.2) 0.768
     Streptococcus 108 (16.6) 57 (15.9) 0.762
    Gram-negative bacilli 20 (3.1) 18 (5.0) 0.122
    Anaerobic bacteria 25 (3.8) 0 -
    Fungi
     Candida 18 (2.8) 11 (3.1) 0.788
     Other fungal species 1 (0.2) 1 (0.3) 0.670
    Polymicrobial 8 (1.2) 5 (1.4) 0.827
    Other microorganisms 23 (3.5) 6 (1.7) 0.089
Echocardiographic findings
Vegetation 460 (70.8) 251 (69.9) 0.776
Intracardiac complications 373 (57.4) 158 (44.0) <0.001
Valve perforation or rupture 35 (5.3) 14 (3.9) 0.293
Pseudoaneurysm 91 (14.0) 45 (12.5) 0.514
Perivalvular abscess 311 (47.8) 120 (33.4) <0.001
Intracardiac fistula 43 (6.6) 17 (4.7) 0.227
Clinical course
Acute heart failure 294 (45.2) 177 (49.3) 0.214
Persistent bacteremia 67 (10.3) 51 (14.2) 0.065
Stroke 146 (22.4) 102 (28.4) 0.036
Embolism a 146 (22.4) 82 (22.8) 0.89
Acute renal failure 289 (44.4) 169 (47.0) 0.425
Septic shock 74 (11.3) 86 (23.9) <0.001
In-hospital mortality 203 (31.3) 184 (51.3) <0.001
First year mortality 232 (35.7) 201 (55.9) <0.001
Recurrence 7 (1.5) 4 (2.8) 0.540

IQR: Interquartile range. CoNS: Coagulase-negative staphylococci.

a Excluding cases with stroke

Fig 2. Survival of patient with PVE according to surgery performance.

Fig 2

The reasons given for not performing the intervention were as follows: severe hemodynamic instability leading to poor prognosis (75 patients, 20.9%), neurological complications (73 patients, 20.3%), challenging surgical procedures (45 patients, 12.5%), other medical causes (74 patients, 20.6%), patient refusal (52 patients, 14.5%) and death of the patient during the discussion of the feasibility of intervention (40 patients, 11.1%).

Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with PVE according to time of onset

Patients diagnosed during the first year after prosthetic valve implantation had a higher frequency of coronary artery disease, chronic renal failure or liver disease, hospital acquisition, aortic PVE and intracardiac complications (such as pseudoaneurysm or abscess) and a lower frequency of mitral and tricuspid valve involvement compared to patients diagnosed with late PVE (Table 4S in the S1 Data). Regarding microbiology, there were more cases due to CoNS and Candida and fewer cases of S. aureus and Streptococcus. Mortality in patients with early PVE was 35.2% and that of patients with late PVE was 31.2% (p = 0.132, Table 4S in the S1 Data) Comparison of the characteristics of patients with PVE who had surgical indication depending on whether they underwent surgery or not and considering separately by the time of onset of PVE (early or late) is presented in Tables 5S and 6S in the S1 Data.

Discussion

We present a comprehensive series of PVE characterized by patients with advanced age and marked comorbidity, as well as by an important role played by CoNS and by the fact that one third of the cases were not operated despite having a surgical indication.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with PVE

Patients with PVE are generally older and have more comorbidities compared to patients with NVE, as has also been evidenced in previous studies [1, 3, 23]. A higher frequency of cases due to CoNS with less involvement of S. aureus and Streptococcus has also been reported [3, 7]. The incidence of PVE due to CoNS was also higher in our study than the 16.9% recorded in another large series of patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 [13]. As an additional fact about etiology, it should be noted the greater tendency for S. aureus to infect mechanical valves and for CoNS and Enterococcus to infect biological valves. Although we have not found other studies with similar results, we consider it relevant to study in the future the possible differences in the adherence of bacteria depending on the material of which prosthetic valves are made, due to their possible preventive or therapeutic implications.

Mortality among PVE cases was higher than in NVE cases, however, however, there are studies showing that mortality, when adjusted for risk factors, may be equal to or even lower than that of patients with NVE [3]. Our study identified several variables independently associated with in-hospital mortality, consistent with previous research. These included baseline patient characteristics (age and comorbidity) [13, 23], the development of acute heart failure [2, 7, 13, 24], perivalvular complications [7, 8, 11], severity of infection indicated by septic shock or persistent bacteremia [13] and cases with surgical indication that were not operated on [8, 25]. The reduction in mortality over time observed in this study has also been evidenced in previous investigations [23, 26]. However, we have not found a clear reason for this finding beyond the slightly higher number of patients who underwent TEE during the second period compared to the first. Advances made in recent years in diagnostic acuity, imaging techniques and surgical treatment may have influenced the reduction in mortality during the second period despite including patients with higher severity [8, 23].

Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with surgical indication who were not operated on

As seen in previous studies, the decision to forgo surgery in patients with surgical indication has a significant impact on prognosis [8]. Among patients who did not undergo surgery, there was a notable tendency to be older and with more comorbidities. Although patients older than 65 years tend to have worse prognosis due to comorbidities, age alone should not be an exclusive factor to exclude surgery [2729]. Of note, patients with chronic liver disease underwent surgery less frequently and experienced higher mortality. It is suggested to consider the status of liver disease (Child-Pugh score) before ruling out surgical intervention in these cases [28]. Surprisingly, cases due to S. aureus, which usually require surgical treatment, were operated less frequently. This could be explained by the higher frequency of severe systemic infection, secondary septic foci, or greater surgical complexity in these patients [9, 29]. Similarly, cases with central nervous system involvement were also less likely to receive surgery. Adequate assessment of the type and extent of stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) is essential before discouraging surgery [30]. Considering the improved survival rates in recent years, physicians should strive to identify patients with poor prognostic factors who may still benefit from surgery [1, 27, 31]. Strategies to reduce the number of patients denied surgery may include better patient education about treatment options, adherence to recommended surgical timelines (emergent, urgent, or elective), and facilitation of transfers to hospitals with expertise in complex surgery.

Clinical characteristics of patients with PVE according to time of onset

When comparing patients who were diagnosed within the first year after valve implantation with those diagnosed later, we observed more cases of nosocomial origin, as would be expected. A higher incidence of intracardiac complications during the first year was also detected, emphasizing the increased importance, if possible, of performing transesophageal echocardiography and other imaging tests such as positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) or cardiac CT in suspected cases of early PVE [8, 11, 32]. The percentage of CoNS causing late PVE was lower than that observed in early PVE cases. Despite this fact, empirical coverage for CoNS could be advisable in late PVE given that it originated 23% of these cases. The occurrence of PVE due to Candida was also significantly lower in late cases (1.2% vs. 4.7% in early cases). Given these low figures, empirical treatment with antifungals in early PVE may not be justified.

Limitations

Firstly, we must acknowledge the extended duration of the study, which could have led to differences in the diagnosis and treatment approaches over time. It is also necessary to take into account the impact of changes in diagnosis and treatment of the different IE guidelines considered over time on the homogeneity of the patients included in the study. Finally, we must point out the fact that many patients were referred from hospitals without cardiac surgery, which could have influenced the etiology and certain characteristics of the patients studied. More severe or milder cases could have been transferred less frequently because surgical intervention can be ruled out at the outset. However, these differences should not be very important considering the fluid communication and adequate coordination between the hospitals without cardiac surgery and the referral hospitals.

Conclusions

Patients with PVE account for nearly one third of all episodes of infective endocarditis (IE) and are characterized by advanced age, marked comorbidity, and a prominent role of CoNS, even in late-onset PVE. The proportion of patients with a surgical indication who do not undergo surgery is significant and is associated with higher mortality rates. Efforts should be made to better identify patients who might benefit most from surgery, including consideration of transfer to referral centers, in order to reduce rejection and delay in the performance of the surgery.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Iván Adán for his task as data coordinator of the GAMES cohort and for his statistical support. We are grateful for the contribution of Juan Rivera Rodríguez in the grammatical revision of the manuscript.

Abbreviations

IE

infective endocarditis

PVE

prosthetic valve endocarditis

NVE

native valve endocarditis

CoNS

coagulase-negative staphylococci

CT

Computed tomography

Data Availability

There is a restriction when it comes to sharing the data set, since both the Research Ethics Committee that approved the study and the data protection legislation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the European Council of 27 April 2016 on Data Protection (RGPD) only allow sharing patient data with health authorities and/or third parties if there is express consent from the data subject. The informed consent signed by our patients did not include the possibility that third parties could freely access their medical information containing some particularly sensitive data such as date of birth, initials, date of admission and discharge and the hospital where the patient was admitted. However, this information can be obtained in justified cases by contacting Ivan Adan from the technical office of the GAMES research network by e-mail: games08@gmail.com.

Funding Statement

The author received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Hussain ST, Shrestha NK, Gordon SM, Houghtaling PL, Blackstone EH, Pettersson GB. Residual patient, anatomic, and surgical obstacles in treating active left-sided infective endocarditis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(3):981–988. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.06.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. 2015. ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 2015 Nov 21;36(44):3075–3128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Weber C, Petrov G, Luehr M, Aubin H, Tugtekin SM, Borger MA, et al. Surgical results for prosthetic versus native valve endocarditis: A multicenter analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021; 161: 609–619. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.09.186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Martínez A, Pubul V, Jokh EA, Martínez A, El-Diasty M, Fernández AL. Surgicel-Related Uptake on Positron Emission Tomography Scan Mimicking Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021. Nov;112(5):e317–e319. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.02.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Robles P. Judicious use of transthoracic echocardiography in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Heart. 2003. Nov;89(11):1283–1284. doi: 10.1136/heart.89.11.1283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pettersson GB, Hussain ST, Shrestha NK, Gordon S, Fraser TG, Ibrahim KS, et al. Infective endocarditis: an atlas of disease progression for describing, staging, coding, and understanding the pathology. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014. Apr;147(4):1142–1149. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.11.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weber C, Rahmanian PB, Nitsche M, Gassa A, Eghbalzadeh K, Hamacher S, et al. Higher incidence of perivalvular abscess determines perioperative clinical outcome in patients undergoing surgery for prosthetic valve endocarditis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2020;20(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Habib G, Erba PA, Iung B, Donal E, Cosyns B, Laroche C, et al. Clinical presentation, aetiology and outcome of infective endocarditis. Results of the ESC-EORP EURO-ENDO (European infective endocarditis) registry: A prospective cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(39):3222–3232. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sáez C, Sarriá C, Vilacosta I, Olmos C, López J, García-Granja PE, et al. A contemporary description of staphylococcus aureus prosthetic valve endocarditis. Differences according to the time elapsed from surgery". Medicine (Baltimore). 2019. Aug;98(35):e16903. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Alonso-Valle H, Fariñas-Alvarez C, García-Palomo JD, Bernal JM, Martín-Durán R, Gutiérrez Díez JF, et al. Clinical course and predictors of death in prosthetic valve endocarditis over a 20-year period. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010. Apr;139(4):887–893. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.05.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lee JH, Burner KD, Fealey ME, Edwards WD, Tazelaar HD, Orszulak TA, et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: Clinicopathological correlates in 122 surgical specimens from 116 patients (1985–2004). Cardiovasc Pathol [Internet]. 2011;20(1):26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.carpath.2009.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG Jr, 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. Oct 13;132(15):1435–1486. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wang A, Athan E, Pappas PA, Fowler VG Jr, Olaison L, Paré C, et al. Contemporary clinical profile and outcome of prosthetic valve endocarditis. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;297(12):1354–1361. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.12.1354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pericàs JM, Llopis J, Muñoz P, Gálvez-Acebal J, Kestler M, Valerio M, et al. A Contemporary Picture of Enterococcal Endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. Feb;75(5):482–494. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Goenaga Sánchez MÁ, Kortajarena Urkola X, Bouza Santiago E, Muñoz García P, Verde Moreno E, Fariñas Álvarez MC, et al. Aetiology of renal failure in patients with infective endocarditis. The role of antibiotics. Med Clin (Barc). 2017. Oct 23;149(8):331–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Benito N, Miró JM, de Lazzari E, Cabell CH, del Río A, Altclas J, et al. Health care-associated native valve endocarditis: importance of non-nosocomial acquisition. Ann Intern Med. 2009. May;150(9):586–594. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sacco RL, Kasner SE, Broderick JP, Caplan LR, Connors JJ, Culebras A, et al. An updated definition of stroke for the 21st century: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013. Jul;44(7):2064–2089. doi: 10.1161/STR.0b013e318296aeca [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Horstkotte D, Follath F, Gutschik E, Lengyel M, Oto A, Pavie A, et al. Guidelines on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis executive summary; the task force on infective endocarditis of the European society of cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2004. Feb;25(3):267–276. doi: 10.1016/j.ehj.2003.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Habib G, Hoen B, Tornos P, Thuny F, Prendergast B, Vilacosta I, et al. Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis (new version 2009): the Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2009. Oct;30(19):2369–2413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Appa A, Adamo M, Le S, et al. Patient-Directed Discharges Among Persons Who Use Drugs Hospitalized with Invasive Staphylococcus aureus Infections: Opportunities for Improvement. Am J Med. 2022. Jan;135(1):91–6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.08.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Del Val D, Panagides V, Mestres CA, Miró JM, Rodés-Cabau J. Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023. Jan 31;81(4):394–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.11.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.García-Arribas D, Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Perez-García CN, Ferrera C, Jerónimo A, et al. Infective endocarditis in patients with aortic grafts. Int J Cardiol. 2021. May 1;330: 148–157. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.02.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Khan MZ, Munir MB, Khan MU, Khan SU, Vasudevan A, Balla S. Contemporary Trends and Outcomes of Prosthetic Valve Infective Endocarditis in the United States: Insights From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Am J Med Sci. 2021. Nov;362(5):472–479. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2021.05.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.López J, Sevilla T, Vilacosta I, García H, Sarriá C, Pozo E, Silva J, et al. Clinical significance of congestive acute heart failure in prosthetic valve endocarditis. A multicenter study with 257 patients. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2013. May;66(5):384–390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lalani T, Chu VH, Park LP, Cecchi E, Corey GR, Durante-Mangoni E, et al. In-hospital and 1-year mortality in patients undergoing early surgery for prosthetic valve endocarditis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013. Sep 9;173(16):1495–1504. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.8203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Perrotta S, Jeppsson A, Fröjd V, Svensson G. Surgical Treatment of Aortic Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: A 20-Year Single-Center Experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016. Apr;101(4):1426–32. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.07.082 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Oliver L, Lavoute C, Giorgi R, Salaun E, Hubert S, Casalta JP, et al. Infective endocarditis in octogenarians. Heart. 2017. Oct;103(20):1602–1609. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310853 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ruiz-Morales J, Ivanova-Georgieva R, Fernández-Hidalgo N, García-Cabrera E, Miró JM, Muñoz P, et al. Left-sided infective endocarditis in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Infect. 2015. Dec;71(6):627–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ragnarsson S, Salto-Alejandre S, Ström A, Olaison L, Rasmussen M. Surgery Is Underused in Elderly Patients With Left-Sided Infective Endocarditis: A Nationwide Registry Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021. Oct 5;10(19):e020221. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhang LQ, Cho S-M, Rice CJ, Khoury J, Marquardt RJ, Buletko AB, et al. Valve surgery for infective endocarditis complicated by stroke: surgical timing and perioperative neurological complications. Eur J Neurol. 2020. Dec;27(12):2430–2438. doi: 10.1111/ene.14438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chu VH, Park LP, Athan E, Delahaye F, Freiberger T, Lamas C, et al. Association between surgical indications, operative risk, and clinical outcome in infective endocarditis: a prospective study from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis. Circulation. 2015. Jan;131(2):131–140. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sohail MR, Martin KR, Wilson WR, Baddour LM, Harmsen WS, Steckelberg JM. Medical versus surgical management of Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic valve endocarditis. Am J Med. 2006;119(2):147–154. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.09.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Redoy Ranjan

6 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-16421Clinical presentation, microbiology, and prognostic factors of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Lessons learned from a large prospective registry.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ramos-Martínez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 20 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Redoy Ranjan, MBBS, MRCSEd, Ch.M., MS (CV&TS), FACS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"Dr. Ojeda-Burgos has received grants for assistance to medical meetings from Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Gilead, Janssen, and Angelini; and has been paid as a speaker in medical meetings from Janssen, Gilead, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Miró has received consulting honoraria and/or research grants from Angelini, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Contrafect, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and ViiV. All authors (including Dr. Ojeda-Burgos and Dr. Miró) have reported that they have no interest conflicts to disclose related to the contents of this paper."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [GAMES investigators]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear the authors. Of the manuscript entitled. Clinical presentation, microbiology, and prognostic factors for prosthetic valve endocarditis. Lessons learned from a large perspective registry. Thank you for writing this manuscript which elaborated on different aspects of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis Presentation, Microbiology and Prognostic factors. Through a study that included two periods of time.

My points to consider. Are the following.

1. This manuscript needs intense English language spelling check. And this language issue is apparently present in almost all of the manuscript sections.

2. There are certain terms that need to be really refashioned such as: Injecting drug user In Table 1., Cardiac insufficiency In Table 2. These terms probably should be rewritten in a more professional way.

3. There was a conflicting sentence to mein the result section in Page. 14. Which says that: Comorbidities, Intracardiac complications and septic shock were more frequent in patients treated during the second period of the study While mortality was improved in this period. This result need to be further explained why mortality was less, despite higher complications and comorbidities were there.

4. The authors mentioned that almost 1/3 of the surgically indicated cases who are having a clear indication for surgery were not operated upon. And these cases that were not operated upon had more risk for mortality. Can you elaborate more? Why there was an obvious reluctance to operate on these patients? And was this a trend because of the surgical risk or the surgeons are hesitant to perform these procedures?

5. Can the authors elaborate more about the methods of echocardiographic assessment used in PVE and whether there was any change between the 2 periods of time

6. The conclusion statement need to reflect the authors opinion about the results they get in this study and should be easy to be understood by the reader.

Thank you

Reviewer #2: This is a large prospective cohort study in which the authors evaluated the clinical presentation, the microbiology and the prognostic factors of 1354 patients affected of prosthetic valve endocarditis. The authors analysed the data of all patients affected of prosthetic valve endocarditis undergoing and not undergoing a surgical treatment. They excluded correctly the endocarditis on native valve, on pacemaker or ICD and on TAVR. A lot of factors were evaluated and analysed to better understand the characteristics of this population: the survival, the surgical treatment, the time of onset (early or late), the site of prosthetic infection (aortic or mitral) and the study period (2008-2013 or 2014-2020). Moreover, a multivariate analysis of clinical factors associated with in-hospital mortality (with considering and without considering septic shock) were performed. The authors paid particular attention, in the discussion and in the conclusion, to the higher mortality of patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis that presented clear surgical indication and that didn’t undergo cardiac surgery for the higher surgical risk.

The topic of this study is very interesting and has been extensively analysed.

However, there are some points of discussion:

1. The manuscript needs an English revision.

2. I suggest to add in the Table 1 a column with the characteristics of the “Overall population” of patients affected of endocarditis. This could be interesting considering the high number of patients analysed.

3. In the Figure 1, I suggest to remake the graphic designer in order to better understand the patients included and excluded in the analysis.

4. The lines 205-206, namely the description and the final number of patients analysed in the study, should be moved to the “Patients” section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Salah Eldien Altarabsheh

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 8;18(9):e0290998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290998.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Aug 2023

Dr. Antonio Ramos

Infectious Diseases Unit

HU Puerta de Hierro

Majadahonda. Madrid. Spain. 28222

29th July 2023

Phone: +34-689 999 333

E-mail: aramos220@gmail.com

Dear Editor

We would first thank the editor and reviewers for their valuable comments, which have made a substantial contribution to improving the quality of the manuscript: "Clinical presentation, microbiology, and prognostic factors of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Lessons learned from a large prospective registry" [PONE-D-23-16421. In the following lines we will try to respond, to the best of our ability, to each of the referees' recommendations. We hope that the answers provided and the changes made to the manuscript will meet with the approval of the editor and reviewers.

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

1. This manuscript needs intense English language spelling check. And this language issue is apparently present in almost all of the manuscript sections. A revision of the English language has been carried out in order to improve grammatical correctness and text comprehension.

2. There are certain terms that need to be really refashioned such as: Injecting drug user In Table 1., Cardiac insufficiency In Table 2. These terms probably should be rewritten in a more professional way. We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. The tables have been revised so that the above and other variables are more appropriately expressed.

Reviewing the number of articles that included the different ways of expressing this harmful habit: People Who Inject Drugs, Injecting Drug Users, intravenous Drug Users, we have observed that the last one is the most preferred by the authors. Consequently, we have changed it. Due to the same reason acute renal injury has been replaced by acute renal failure. We have also changed cardiac insufficiency referring to comorbidity for chronic heart failure and heart failure (during hospital admission) for acute heart failure.

3. There was a conflicting sentence to main the result section in Page. 14. Which says that: Comorbidities, Intracardiac complications and septic shock were more frequent in patients treated during the second period of the study While mortality was improved in this period. This result needs to be further explained why mortality was less, despite higher complications and comorbidities were there. In “Discussion” it is mentioned that the better prognosis of the patients in the second period (in spite of presenting a poor clinical situation in some aspects) could be related to a progressive increase in the quality of the medical care provided to the patients over time. The speed of diagnosis, the better visualization of each patient's pathology and the progressive learning of surgical skills in each participating hospital over time are variables that are not easy to ascertain and are probably some of the causes of this finding. To a great degree, we do not know if there is any underlying cause responsible for this prognostic improvement. The discussion has been modified and a bibliographic citation has been added describing a lower mortality over time in patients with PVD. [Perrotta S, Jeppsson A, Fröjd V, Svensson G. Surgical Treatment of Aortic Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: A 20-Year Single-Center Experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Apr;101(4):1426-32] .

4. The authors mentioned that almost 1/3 of the surgically indicated cases who are having a clear indication for surgery were not operated upon. And these cases that were not operated upon had more risk for mortality.

Can you elaborate more? Table 5 shows a comparison of several variables that allow visualizing the differences between these two groups of patients.

Why there was an obvious reluctance to operate on these patients?And was this a trend because of the surgical risk or the surgeons are hesitant to perform these procedures? Failure to perform surgery in patients with an indication is a very relevant problem, but unfortunately it is quite frequent one. We think that there is not a single reason for this fact, but several of them. Advanced age, important comorbidity, the poor prognosis some patients (despite surgery) due to a bad clinical condition of and the degree of experience and professional competence of the different surgical teams are factors related to this problem. We think that in most cases it was assumed that when surgery is rejected, it would not be of any benefit to the patients because of, for example, septic shock or neurological complications.

In "Results" the reasons given for not having performed surgery in patients with a surgical indication are shown. In the "Discussion" section we have tried to go deeper into this problem suggesting possible strategies to reduce the number of patients denied surgery. Several comments are presented in relation to the comparison of the clinical characteristics of the patients accepted and rejected for surgery.

5. Can the authors elaborate more about the methods of echocardiographic assessment used in PVE and whether there was any change between the 2 periods of time We are grateful for the reviewer's suggestion. We have added to Table 3S the number of patients in each period in whom transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) were performed and the number of patients in whom each of these two imaging tests was the only echocardiography performed. There were more cases of patients with TEE performed in the second period. The model of echograph used was not specifically recorded in the database, but the resolution of these technologies, logically, may have progressively improved during the study, although it is not possible to pinpoint the specific changes given the large number of participating hospitals.

6. The conclusion statement need to reflect the authors opinion about the results they get in this study and should be easy to be understood by the reader. We have tried to reflect the authors' opinion on the results in the conclusions section by modifying its structure. We have also tried to improve the reader's understanding.

Reviewer #2: This is a large prospective cohort study in which the authors evaluated the clinical presentation, the microbiology and the prognostic factors of 1354 patients affected of prosthetic valve endocarditis. The authors analysed the data of all patients affected of prosthetic valve endocarditis undergoing and not undergoing a surgical treatment. They excluded correctly the endocarditis on native valve, on pacemaker or ICD and on TAVR. A lot of factors were evaluated and analysed to better understand the characteristics of this population: the survival, the surgical treatment, the time of onset (early or late), the site of prosthetic infection (aortic or mitral) and the study period (2008-2013 or 2014-2020). Moreover, a multivariate analysis of clinical factors associated with in-hospital mortality (with considering and without considering septic shock) were performed. The authors paid particular attention, in the discussion and in the conclusion, to the higher mortality of patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis that presented clear surgical indication and that didn’t undergo cardiac surgery for the higher surgical risk.

The topic of this study is very interesting and has been extensively analysed.

However, there are some points of discussion:

1. The manuscript needs an English revision. A revision of the English language has been carried out to try to improve its grammatical correction.

2. I suggest to add in the Table 1 a column with the characteristics of the “Overall population” of patients affected of endocarditis. This could be interesting considering the high number of patients analysed. A column has been added with the total number of patients as suggested by the reviewer.

3. In the Figure 1, I suggest to remake the graphic designer in order to better understand the patients included and excluded in the analysis. Figure 1 has been modified for a better understanding of the patients included and excluded in the analysis.

4. The lines 205-206, namely the description and the final number of patients analysed in the study, should be moved to the “Patients” section.

We agree with the reviewer that this information could be added to "Methods". However, and given that the results include a comparison of patients with IE on native valve with patients with IE on prosthetic valve, we consider that it might be more appropriate to keep under "Results" the total number of patients with IE and the number of patients with each type of infection (native or prosthetic).

We would like to thank you once again.

Sincerely yours

Antonio Ramos

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answer to referees.docx

Decision Letter 1

Redoy Ranjan

21 Aug 2023

Clinical presentation, microbiology, and prognostic factors of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Lessons learned from a large prospective registry.

PONE-D-23-16421R1

Dear Dr. Ramos-Martínez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Redoy Ranjan, MBBS, MRCSEd, Ch.M., MS (CV&TS), FACS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors are thanked for this submission to PLOS ONE. After a critical external peer review by two experts and considering the overall reviewers' comments and authors' responses, your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's publication criteria; fulfils the methodological rigour and ethical standards.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Dear the authors

Thank you for taking in consideration all the reviewers comments

I am satisfied with the current version of the manuscript

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing my comments and for the opportunity to review this paper. There are no further comments from my side.

**********

Acceptance letter

Redoy Ranjan

30 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-16421R1

Clinical presentation, microbiology, and prognostic factors of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Lessons learned from a large prospective registry.

Dear Dr. Ramos-Martínez:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Redoy Ranjan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answer to referees.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    There is a restriction when it comes to sharing the data set, since both the Research Ethics Committee that approved the study and the data protection legislation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the European Council of 27 April 2016 on Data Protection (RGPD) only allow sharing patient data with health authorities and/or third parties if there is express consent from the data subject. The informed consent signed by our patients did not include the possibility that third parties could freely access their medical information containing some particularly sensitive data such as date of birth, initials, date of admission and discharge and the hospital where the patient was admitted. However, this information can be obtained in justified cases by contacting Ivan Adan from the technical office of the GAMES research network by e-mail: games08@gmail.com.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES