Choice of valve substitutes.

Abstract

Infective endocarditis often necessitates surgical intervention, and the choice of valve substitute remains a topic of controversy and highly debatable due to the wide range of available options and recent technical advancements. This manuscript reviews the different valve substitutes in the context of infective endocarditis, including mechanical and bioprosthetic valves, homografts, xenografts, and tissue-engineered valves. The patient's age, sex, demographic location, intellectual quotient, comorbidities, available options, and the experience of the surgeon should all be taken into consideration while choosing the best valve substitute for that individual. While valve repair and reconstruction are preferred whenever feasible, valve replacement may be the only option in certain cases. The choice between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves should be guided by standard criteria such as age, sex, expected lifespan, associated comorbidities, and anticipated adherence to anticoagulation therapy and accessibility of medical facilities for follow-up. For patients with severe chronic illness or a history of intracranial bleeding or associated hematological disorders, the use of mechanical prostheses may be avoided. Homografts and bioprosthetic valves provide an alternative to mechanical valves, thereby decreasing the necessity for lifelong anticoagulation after surgery and diminishing the likelihood of bleeding complications. The manuscript also discusses specific valve substitutes for different heart valves (aortic, mitral, pulmonary, tricuspid positions) and highlights emerging techniques such as the aortic valve neocuspidization (Ozaki procedure) and tissue-engineered valves. Ultimately, the ideal valve substitute in IE should be evidence based on a comprehensive elucidation of clinical condition of the patient and available options.