Valvectomy versus replacement for the surgical treatment of infective tricuspid valve endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Optimal surgical treatment of infective tricuspid valve endocarditis in patients with intravenous drug use (IVDU) remains controversial. Tricuspid valvectomy has been proposed for infective tricuspid valve endocarditis in this patient population given the inherent social concerns. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of valvectomy versus replacement for the surgical treatment of isolated infective tricuspid valve endocarditis. Methods: An electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies published. After assessment for inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 original studies were pooled for systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: There were a total of 752 patients with infective tricuspid valve endocarditis, of which 14% underwent valvectomy and 86% underwent replacement (mean follow-up 4.2 years, 95% CI, 1.9–6.4 years). The most common indications for surgical intervention were septic pulmonary embolism in the valvectomy group (74%, 95% CI, 28–95%) and persistent sepsis in the replacement group (62%, 95% CI, 31–86%). There were no differences in rates of stroke [valvectomy 4% (95% CI, 1–11%) vs. replacement 3% (95% CI, 1–16%), P=0.85] but there was increased likelihood of prolonged ventilation in those who underwent valvectomy [valvectomy 40% (95% CI, 30–51%) vs. replacement 26% (95% CI, 23–30%), P<0.01]. There were no differences in 30-day post-operative mortality [valvectomy 13% (95% CI, 5–30%) vs. replacement 7% (95% CI, 5–10%), P=0.21], post-operative right heart failure [valvectomy 27% (95% CI, 10–53%) vs. replacement 11% (95% CI, 5–25%), P=0.17] and recurrent endocarditis [valvectomy 7% (95% CI, 2–23%) vs. replacement 19% (95% CI, 12–28%), P=0.81]. Valvectomy had a higher rate of tricuspid valve reoperation [valvectomy 56% (95% CI, 15–90%) vs. initial replacement 14% (95% CI, 7–27%), P=0.06]. Conclusions: Tricuspid valvectomy is an acceptable initial therapy for infective tricuspid valve endocarditis in patients with IVDU, providing a bridge to identify those who will self-select as candidates for staged valve replacement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".