Infective endocarditis (IE) is still a life-threatening disease with frequent lethal outcomes despite the profound changes in its clinical, microbiological, imaging, and therapeutic profiles. Nowadays, the scenario for IE has changed since rheumatic fever has declined, but on the other hand, multiple aspects, such as elderly populations, cardiovascular device implantation procedures, and better use of multiple imaging modalities and multidisciplinary care, have increased, leading to escalations in diagnosis. Since the ESC and AHA Guidelines have been released, specific aspects of diagnostic and therapeutic management have been clarified to provide better and faster diagnosis and prognosis. Surgical treatment is required in approximately half of patients with IE in order to avoid progressive heart failure, irreversible structural damage in the case of uncontrolled infection, and the prevention of embolism. The timing of surgery has been one of the main aspects discussed, identifying cases in which surgery needs to be performed on an emergency (within 24 h) or urgent (within 7 days) basis, irrespective of the duration of antibiotic treatment, or cases where surgery can be postponed to allow a brief period of antibiotic treatment under careful clinical and echocardiographic observation. Mainly, guidelines put emphasis on the importance of an endocarditis team in the handling of systemic complications and how they affect the timing of surgery and perioperative management. Neurological complications, acute renal failure, splenic or musculoskeletal manifestations, or infections determined by multiresistant microorganisms or fungi can affect long-term prognosis and survival. Not to be outdone, anatomical and surgical factors, such as the presence of native or prosthetic valve endocarditis, a repair strategy when feasible, anatomical extension and disruption in the case of an annular abscess (mitral valve annulus, aortic mitral curtain, aortic root, and annulus), and the choice of prosthesis and conduits, can be equally crucial. It can be hard for surgeons to maneuver between correct pre-operative planning and facing unexpected obstacles during intraoperative management. The aim of this review is to provide an overview and analysis of a broad spectrum of specific surgical scenarios and how their challenging management can be essential to ensure better outcomes and prognoses.

This study evaluates the long-term outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve repair (MIMVR) in patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation, focusing on survival, mitral valve repair failure, and re-operation rates. A cohort of patients undergoing three primary repair techniques—quadrangular resection, edge-to-edge repair, and artificial chordae implantation—was analyzed using time-to-event methods. The overall survival rates at 1, 10, and 20 years were high and comparable among the techniques, indicating effective long-term benefits of MIMVR. However, freedom from recurrence of moderate mitral regurgitation (MR) ≥ 2 was significantly higher in the quadrangular resection and edge-to-edge groups compared to the artificial chordae group. No significant differences were observed for recurrent MR ≥ 3. Re-operation rates were low and similar across all techniques, underscoring the durability of MIMVR. Pre-discharge residual MR ≥ 2 was identified as a strong predictor of long-term repair failure. These findings confirm the effectiveness of MIMVR, with all techniques demonstrating excellent long-term survival and durability.