Clinical profile and outcome of recurrent infective endocarditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Purpose of this study is to compare the clinical course and outcome of patients with recurrent versus first-episode infective endocarditis (IE). Methods Patients with recurrent and first-episode IE enrolled in the EUROpean ENDOcarditis (EURO-ENDO) registry including 156 centres were identified and compared using propensity score matching. Recurrent IE was classified as relapse when IE occurred ≤6 months after a previous episode or reinfection when IE occurred >6 months after the prior episode. Results 3106 patients were enrolled: 2839 (91.4%) patients with first-episode IE (mean age 59.4 (±18.1); 68.3% male) and 267 (8.6%) patients with recurrent IE (mean age 58.1 (±17.7); 74.9% male). Among patients with recurrent IE, 13.2% were intravenous drug users (IVDUs), 66.4% had a repaired or replaced valve with the tricuspid valve being more frequently involved compared with patients with first-episode IE (20.3% vs 14.1%; p=0.012). In patients with a first episode of IE, the aortic valve was more frequently involved (45.6% vs 39.5%; p=0.061). Recurrent relapse and reinfection were 20.6% and 79.4%, respectively. Staphylococcus aureus was the microorganism most frequently observed in both groups (p=0.207). There were no differences in in-hospital and post-hospitalisation mortality between recurrent and first-episode IE. In patients with recurrent IE, in-hospital mortality was higher in IVDU patients. Independent predictors of poorer in-hospital and 1-year outcome, including the occurrence of cardiogenic and septic shock, valvular disease severity and failure to undertake surgery when indicated, were similar for recurrent and first-episode IE. Conclusions In-hospital and 1-year mortality was similar in patients with recurrent and first-episode IE who shared similar predictors of poor outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".