Objective Infective endocarditis is associated with high morbidity and mortality and optimal timing for surgical intervention is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare early surgical intervention with conservative therapy in patients with infective endocarditis. Methods PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and Google-scholar databases were searched from January 1960 to April 2015. Randomised controlled trials, retrospective cohorts and prospective observational studies comparing outcomes between early surgery at 20 days or less and conservative management for infective endocarditis were analysed. Results A total of 21 studies were included. OR of all-cause mortality for early surgery was 0.61 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.74, p<0.001) in unmatched groups and 0.41 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.54, p<0.001) in the propensity-matched groups (matched for baseline variables). For patients who had surgical intervention at 7 days or less, OR of all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.96, p=0.034) and in those who had surgical intervention within 8–20 days, the OR of mortality was 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.86, p=0.003) compared with conservative management. In propensity-matched groups, the OR of mortality in patients with surgical intervention at 7 days or less was 0.30 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.54, p<0.001) and in the subgroup of patients who underwent surgery between 8 and 20 days was 0.51 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.72, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality, embolisation, heart failure and recurrence of endocarditis between the overall unmatched cohorts. Conclusion The results of our meta-analysis suggest that early surgical intervention is associated with significantly lower risk of mortality in patients with infective endocarditis.

Background: Critical limb ischemia (CLI) morbidity and mortality rates have historically been disproportionately higher than for other atherosclerotic diseases, however, recent trends have not been reported. In patients admitted with CLI, we aimed to examine trends in in-hospital mortality, major amputations, length of stay, and cost of hospitalizations overall and stratified by type of revascularization procedures. Methods: Using 2011 to 2017 National Inpatient Sample data, we identified CLI-related admissions based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Edition, Clinical Modification codes. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and major amputations. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay and cost of hospitalization. We stratified outcomes based on endovascular or open surgical interventions. We also performed hierarchical multivariable regression analyses of outcomes based on age, sex, race, hospital size, type, and location. Results: We identified 2 643 087 CLI-related admissions between 2011 and 2017. CLI admissions increased from 0.9% to 1.4% P _trend <0.0001 as well as overall peripheral artery disease admissions (4.5%–8.9%, P _trend <0.0001). In-hospital mortality for the entire CLI cohort decreased from 3.3% to 2.7%, P _trend <0.0001, and major amputations decreased from 10.9% to 7%, P _trend <0.0001. A decline was also noted for the length of stay from 5.7 (3.1–10.1) to 5.4 (3.0–9.2) days ( P _trend <0.0001), whereas admission costs increased from USD $11 791 ($6676–$21 712) to $12 597 ($7248–$22 748; P _trend <0.0001). Endovascular interventions increased ( P _trend <0.0001) against a decline in surgical interventions ( P _trend <0.0001). Black race, female sex, and age ≥60 years were associated with higher in-hospital mortality, whereas Black race, male sex, and age<60 years were associated with higher major amputations. Conclusions: A relatively small decrease in absolute numbers for mortality and major amputations were observed against a backdrop of increasing CLI admissions over recent years. Patients with CLI received more endovascular interventions than surgical interventions over time. However, admissions for endovascular interventions were characterized by higher risk patient profiles and a higher risk of major amputations as compared with surgical interventions.

Objective: Bioprosthetic valves are being used with increased frequency for valve replacement, with controversy regarding risk:benefit ratio compared with mechanical valves in younger patients. However, prior studies have been too small to provide comparative estimates of less common but serious adverse events such as infective endocarditis. We aimed to compare the incidence of infective endocarditis between bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to April 2018 for studies comparing left-sided aortic and mitral bioprosthetic to mechanical valves for randomised trials or observational studies with propensity matching. We used random-effects model for our meta-analysis. Our primary outcome of interest was the rate of infective endocarditis at follow-up. Results: 13 comparison groups with 43 941 patients were included. Mean age was 59±7 years with a mean follow-up of 10.4±5.0 years. Patients with bioprosthetic valves had a higher risk of infective endocarditis compared with patients receiving mechanical valves (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.88, p<0.001) with an absolute risk reduction of 9 per 1000 (95% CI 6 to 14). Heterogeneity within the included studies was low (I²=0%). Exclusion of the study with maximum weight did not change the results of the analysis (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.17, p=0.006). A meta-regression of follow-up time on incidence of infective endocarditis was not statistically significant (p=0.788) indicating difference in follow-up times did not alter the pooled risk of infective endocarditis. Conclusions: Bioprosthetic valves may be associated with a higher risk of infective endocarditis. These data should help guide the discussion when deciding between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in individual patients.

Coronary angiography has long been the standard for coronary imaging, but it has limitations in assessing vessel wall anatomy and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intracoronary imaging techniques like intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) can overcome these limitations. IVUS uses ultrasound and OCT uses near-infrared light to visualize coronary pathology in unique ways due to differences in temporal and spatial resolution. These techniques have evolved to offer clinical utility in plaque characterization and vessel assessment during PCI. Meta-analyses and adjusted observational studies suggest that both IVUS and OCT-guided PCI correlate with reduced cardiovascular risks compared to angiographic guidance alone. While IVUS demonstrates consistent clinical outcome benefits, OCT evidence is less robust. IVUS has progressed from early motion detection to high-resolution systems, with smaller compatible catheters. OCT utilizes near infrared light to achieve unparalleled resolutions, but requires temporary blood clearance for optimal imaging. Enhanced visualization and guidance make IVUS and OCT well-suited for higher risk PCI in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease by allowing detailed visualization of complex lesions and ensuring optimal stent deployment and positioning in PCI for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, improving outcomes. IVUS and recent advancements in zero- and low-contrast OCT techniques can reduce nephrotoxic contrast exposure, thus helping to minimize PCI complications in these high-risk patient groups. IVUS and OCT provide valuable insights into coronary pathophysiology and guide interventions precisely compared to angiography alone. Both have comparable clinical outcomes, emphasizing the need for tailored imaging choices based on clinical scenarios. Continued refinement and integration of intravascular imaging will likely play a pivotal role in optimizing coronary interventions and outcomes. This systematic review aims to delve into the nuances of IVUS and OCT, highlighting their strengths and limitations as PCI adjuncts.