Responses

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Endocarditis risk with bioprosthetic and mechanical valves: systematic review and meta-analysis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Specification of criteria for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis is fundamental

    A review of comparative incidence of infective endocarditis in bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves (1) can only be complete if there is a clear statement of the criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. An important characteristic of prosthetic valve endocarditis is that "the diagnosis[of endocarditis] is more difficult in the presence of a prosthetic valve when compared with a native valve" due to the fact that "the Duke criteria have been shown to be less helpful in prosthetic valve endocarditis because of lower sensitivity in this setting"(2). Furthermore,
    the diagnostic accuracy of some imaging modalities is suboptimal in prosthetic valve endocarditis(3). According to the latter review , among patients with suspected prosthetic valve endocarditis sensitivity of transthoracic echocardiography can be as low as 17%-36%. For transoesophageal echocardiography(TOE) that parameter increases to 82-96%, the latter statistic comparable to the sensitivity associated with 18 Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT(PET/CT). Also in the context of prosthetic valve endocarditis, TOE and PET/CT also have comparable specificities in the range 80-96%(3). The major limitation of TOE is that it is invasive and also operator dependent. By contrast PET/CT not only increases the sensitivity of the modified Duke criteria from 70% to 97%(without affecting specificity) but that modality also identifies metastatic septic embol...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.