Search

Background: Treatment for infective endocarditis (IE) is usually medical, with surgery reserved for those failing medical management or developing complications. Currently, 25%-50% of patients undergo surgery for IE with a 70%-80% immediate survival rate. However, there is controversy over the timing of surgery following cerebrovascular events, which occur in 15%-30% of IE patients. This study aimed to investigate whether surgical management is superior to medical management in patients with IE and to determine the optimal timing for surgery following the development of neurological symptoms., Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between 2012 and 2018 from 436 patients diagnosed with IE and treated at our tertiary teaching hospital. The authors analysed the type of treatment, the timing of surgery, and the outcomes of these including mortality, IE recurrence, and length of hospital stay., Results: A total of 421 patients were included in the analysis. More than two-thirds (69.1%) of patients underwent surgical intervention. The survival rate of patients having surgery for IE was 77.2%, compared to 50.7% in patients who did not undergo surgical intervention. 6.8% of patients presented with neurological symptoms; 73.3% of these patients had surgery within 14 days with a 90.9% survival., Conclusion: This study finds surgery to be safe with a seemingly higher survival rate compared to medical management alone, although this may be confounded by patients in the medical group being less likely to have surgery. Surgery in patients presenting with neurological symptoms is safe within 2 weeks from presentation with excellent outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aortic dissection is an acute presentation that, if unnoticed, poses a significant risk to life. Anatomically, it is defined as a tear in the intimal layer of the aorta, but management differs significantly based on the location of this tear. Traditionally the Stanford and DeBakey classifications have been used to distinguish tear types and thus guide the most favourable management option, be it medical optimisation or surgery. Recently, a new Type-Entry-Malperfusion classification has been proposed to more accurately define and thus risk stratify patients with aortic dissection. This review summarises the Type-Entry-Malperfusion classification and highlights its potential advantages and limitations compared to other classifications. Clinical insights and potential barriers to adopting this classification are also described in this review., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)