Background: Left atrial thrombi are mostly related to mitral valve disease. The differential diagnosis of clots and myxomas in the left atrium is mostly based on echocardiography. Infection of intracardiac thrombi is extremely rare and mostly reported in ventricular clots or aneurysms following myocardial infarction. Case presentation: We present the case of a 65 year old female with a history of mitral valve disease and chronic atrial fibrillation who suffered repeated embolic strokes and a giant infected clot in the left atrium. Although the patient underwent prompt surgery with removal of the clot and valve replacement the complication of septic emboli to the CNS led her to death. To the best of our knowledge this is the second report of an infected left atrial thrombus. Conclusion: The case is a representative example of a neglected and undertreated patient with catastrophic consequences. Anticoagulant therapy in patients with mitral valve disease and atrial fibrillation should be applied according the currently available guidelines and standards in order to avoid analogous paradigms in the future. Mitral valve substitution should be considered in patients with mitral valve disease presenting thromboembolic complications. Surgery should be considered as the treatment of choice in cases of organized left atrial thrombus and suspected tumor or infected mass.

Although aortic valve replacement remains the gold standard treatment for aortic valve diseases like stenosis (AS) or insufficiency, new surgical methods have been developed with a focus in the reconstruction of the aortic valve rather than replacing it. The Ozaki procedure involves a tailored replacement of each individual valvular leaflet with glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium and aims to reproduce the normal anatomy of the aortic valve. Cases of patients with unicuspid aortic valve treated with the Ozaki procedure are uncommon in the litrature and become even more rare when it comes to concomitant diseases like AS and ascending aorta aneurysm. We present the case of a 21-year-old, fit and asymptomatic male, with unicuspid aortic valve with severe stenosis and ascending aorta dilatation, surgically treated with tricuspidization of the aortic valve with glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium and replacement of the ascending aorta with a straight synthetic graft. Postoperative studies showed a fully functional, neo-tailored tricuspid aortic valve with trivial regurgitation. The patient had an uncomplicated recovery, stayed in the intensive care unit for 2 days and was discharged on the 7th postoperative day.

Background and Objectives: The treatment of choice for aortic valve stenosis in patients with low and intermediate risk is still debated. In this study, we compared the outcomes of low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients who underwent surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, 326 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), while 341 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The two populations were propensity score matched by age, gender and Euroscore II. The survival rate of patients during median 5-year follow-up between SAVR and TAVI patients was evaluated. Results: After propensity score matching, 94 pairs of patients were compared and the mean standard deviation age of patients, sex (female) and Euroscore II were 77.5 (6.6) versus 76.6 (6.5) years, 51.1% versus 51.1% and 3.3 (1.88)% versus 3.0 (1,84)%, respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in transcatheter group (21.3% versus 1.1%, p < 0.001). No difference in length of ICU and in-hospital stay was observed, p = 0.08 and p = 0.12, respectively. During follow-up the presence of more than moderate insufficiency of the prosthetic valve postoperatively was significantly less frequent in the surgical versus transcatheter (0% versus 14.3%). Survival rates over 1, 3 and 5 years did not differ in surgical versus transcatheter group (93.6%, 81.9% and 62.8% versus 86.2%, 69.1% and 59.6%, respectively (p = 0.16)). Conclusions: Short- and long-term survival rates were similar in patients who underwent transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement, whereas SAVR showed superior results concerning the postoperative detection of residual regurgitation and need for PPM. It is extremely important to personalize the choice of treatment according to patients’ age, clinical status and life expectancy.