Mechanical versus Biological Valve Prostheses for Infective Endocarditis Presenting with Stroke

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mechanical and biological valve prostheses in patients with infective endocarditis presenting with stroke. Methods: Ninety-five adults with infective endocarditis complicated by stroke at baseline who underwent aortic and/or mitral valve replacement were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and re-endocarditis. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the composite outcome and modified Rankin scale deterioration during follow-up. Results: Among the study cohort, 34 patients (35.8%) received mechanical valve prostheses and 61 (64.2%) received biological valve prostheses. Implantation of a mechanical valve prosthesis seems to be associated with a decreased risk of attaining the composite outcome (adjusted HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96, and p = 0.037). Analyses of the individual components of the composite outcome showed that implantation of a mechanical valve prosthesis might not be associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and all-cause mortality during the follow-up period. Further, the risk of re-endocarditis was significantly lower in recipients of a mechanical valve prosthesis (adjusted HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.77, p = 0.026). Notably, a trend toward decreased risk of modified Rankin scale deterioration throughout the follow-up period was observed in this group (adjusted odds ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1.02, p = 0.053). Conclusions: Implantation of mechanical valve prostheses in patients presenting with infective endocarditis complicated by stroke seems to be beneficial in terms of a reduced risk of experiencing a composite outcome. Analyses of larger cohorts are required to validate our findings.