Surgical Timing in Infective Endocarditis: Determinants and Clinical Implications

Article In Press | Published on: April 10, 2026

Volume: 2, Issue: 1

1. Department of Cardiology, Hitit University Erol Olçok Education and Research Hospital, Corum, Turkey.

2. Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Corum, Turkey.

3. Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Muğla University, Muğla, Turkey.

4. Department of Cardiology, Gediz State Hospital, Kütahya, Turkey.


Corresponding Author: Macit Kalçik, Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Corum, Turkey.

Citation: Ömer B. Çelik, M. Kalçik, A. Sarihan, O. Çelik, Mehmet M. Yilmaz, et al. (2026). Surgical Timing in Infective Endocarditis: Determinants and Clinical Implications. Journal of Surgical Case Reports and Research, 2(1).

Copyright: © 2026 Macit Kalçık, this is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Submitted On
March 03, 2026
Accepted On
April 02, 2026
Published On
April 10, 2026

Abstract

Infective endocarditis remains associated with substantial morbidity and mortality despite advances in antimicrobial therapy and imaging techniques. Surgical intervention is required in nearly half of affected patients; however, determining the optimal timing of surgery continues to represent a major clinical challenge. The decision is influenced not only by infection control but also by the dynamic progression of structural damage, embolic risk, and hemodynamic compromise. Ongoing valvular destruction may lead to acute regurgitation and heart failure, while extension of infection beyond the valve can result in abscess formation or fistulous communication, both of which are associated with poor outcomes if intervention is delayed. Vegetation size, mobility, and location play critical roles in embolic risk stratification, and early surgery may reduce the likelihood of recurrent embolic events in high-risk patients. Neurological complications further complicate decision-making, as ischemic stroke may allow timely intervention in selected cases, whereas intracranial hemorrhage often necessitates postponement. Prosthetic valve involvement represents a particularly aggressive form of disease due to biofilm formation and a higher propensity for perivalvular extension. Optimal management therefore requires integration of clinical status, imaging findings, and neurological assessment. A multidisciplinary approach has emerged as an essential strategy to guide individualized surgical timing and improve outcomes. Early intervention, when appropriately selected, may prevent irreversible structural damage and systemic complications.

Keywords

infective endocarditis surgical timing embolic risk perivalvular complications multidisciplinary management

Download PDF

References

1. Murdoch D.R, Corey G.R, Hoen B, et al. (2009). Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study. Archives of internal medicine, 169(5):463-473.

Publisher | Google Scholar

2. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes M. J, et al. (2015). 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). European heart journal, 36(44):3075-3128.

Publisher | Google Scholar

3. Kang D.H, Kim Y.J, Kim S.H, et al. (2012). Early surgery versus conventional treatment for infective endocarditis. The New England journal of medicine, 366(26):2466-2473.

Publisher | Google Scholar

4. Thuny F, Grisoli D, Collart F, Habib G, Raoult D. (2012). Management of infective endocarditis: challenges and perspectives. Lancet (London, England), 379(9819):965-975.

Publisher | Google Scholar

5. Prendergast B.D. (2006). The changing face of infective endocarditis. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 92(7):879-885.

Publisher | Google Scholar

6. Hill E.E, Herijgers P, Claus P, Vanderschueren S, Herregods M.C, Peetermans W.E. (2007). Infective endocarditis: changing epidemiology and predictors of 6-month mortality: a prospective cohort study. European heart journal, 28(2):196-203.

Publisher | Google Scholar

7. Anguera I, Miro J. M, Vilacosta I, et al. (2005). Aorto-cavitary fistulous tract formation in infective endocarditis: clinical and echocardiographic features of 76 cases and risk factors for mortality. European heart journal, 26(3):288-297.

Publisher | Google Scholar

8. Vilacosta I, Graupner C, San Román J. A, et al. (2002). Risk of embolization after institution of antibiotic therapy for infective endocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 39(9):1489-1495.

Publisher | Google Scholar

9. Thuny F, Avierinos J.F, Tribouilloy C, et al. (2007). Impact of cerebrovascular complications on mortality and neurologic outcome during infective endocarditis: a prospective multicenter study. European heart journal, 28(9):1155-1161.

Publisher | Google Scholar

10. Di Salvo G, Habib G, Pergola V, et al. (2001). Echocardiography predicts embolic events in infective endocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 37(4):1069-1076.

Publisher | Google Scholar

11. Mohananey D, Mohadjer A, Pettersson G, et al. (2018). Association of Vegetation Size with Embolic Risk in Patients with Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA internal medicine, 178(4):502-510.

Publisher | Google Scholar

12. Delgado V, Ajmone Marsan N, de Waha S, et al. (2023). 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of endocarditis. European heart journal, 44(39):3948-4042.

Publisher | Google Scholar

13. Ruttmann E, Willeit J, Ulmer H, et al. (2006). Neurological outcome of septic cardioembolic stroke after infective endocarditis. Stroke, 37(8):2094-2099.

Publisher | Google Scholar

14. Ouchi K, Sakuma T, Ojiri H. (2018). Cardiac computed tomography as a viable alternative to echocardiography to detect vegetations and perivalvular complications in patients with infective endocarditis. Japanese journal of radiology, 36(7):421-428.

Publisher | Google Scholar

15. Pericas J. M, Llopis J, Cervera C, et al. (2015). Infective endocarditis in patients with an implanted transcatheter aortic valve: Clinical characteristics and outcome of a new entity. The Journal of infection, 70(6):565-576.

Publisher | Google Scholar

16. Graupner C, Vilacosta I, SanRomán J, et al. (2002). Periannular extension of infective endocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 39(7):1204-1211.

Publisher | Google Scholar

17. Habib G, Badano L, Tribouilloy C, et al. (2010). Recommendations for the practice of echocardiography in infective endocarditis. European journal of echocardiography: the journal of the Working Group on Echocardiography of the European Society of Cardiology, 11(2):202-219.

Publisher | Google Scholar

18. Feuchtner G. M, Stolzmann P, Dichtl W, et al. (2009). Mult slice computed tomography in infective endocarditis: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and intraoperative findings. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 53(5):436-444.

Publisher | Google Scholar

19. Tornos P, Iung B, Permanyer-Miralda G, et al. (2005). Infective endocarditis in Europe: lessons from the Euro heart survey. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 91(5):571-575.

Publisher | Google Scholar

20. Tribouilloy C, Rusinaru D, Sorel C, et al. (2010). Clinical characteristics and outcome of infective endocarditis in adults with bicuspid aortic valves: a multicenter observational study. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 96(21):1723-1729.

Publisher | Google Scholar

21. Wang A, Athan E, Pappas P. A, et al. (2007). Contemporary clinical profile and outcome of prosthetic valve endocarditis. JAMA, 297(12):1354-1361.

Publisher | Google Scholar

22. Hasbun R, Vikram H. R, Barakat L. A, Buenconsejo J, Quaglia Ello V. J. (2003). Complicated left-sided native valve endocarditis in adults: risk classification for mortality. JAMA, 289(15): 1933-1940.

Publisher | Google Scholar

23. Bohbot Y, Habib G, Laroche C, et al. (2022). Characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with left-sided infective endocarditis complicated by heart failure: a sub study of the ESC-EORP EURO-ENDO (European infective endocarditis) registry. European journal of heart failure, 24(7):1253-1265.

Publisher | Google Scholar

24. García-Cabrera E, Fernández-Hidalgo N, Almirante B, et al. (2013). Neurological complications of infective endocarditis: risk factors, outcome, and impact of cardiac surgery: a multicenter observational study. Circulation, 127(23):2272-2284.

Publisher | Google Scholar

25. Okita Y, Minakata K, Yasuno S, et al. (2016). Optimal timing of surgery for active infective endocarditis with cerebral complications: a Japanese multicenter study. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 50(2):374-382.

Publisher | Google Scholar

26. Cooper H. A, Thompson E. C, Laureno R, et al. (2009). Subclinical brain embolization in left-sided infective endocarditis: results from the evaluation by MRI of the brains of patients with left-sided intracardiac solid masses (EMBOLISM) pilot study. Circulation, 120(7):585-591.

Publisher | Google Scholar

27. Güray Y, Gücük İpek E, Acar B, et al. (2016). Long-term outcome in patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis: results from a single center in Turkey. Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi arsivi: Turk Kardiyoloji Derneginin yayin organidir, 44(2):105-113.

Publisher | Google Scholar

28. Habib G, Thuny F, Avierinos J. F. (2008). Prosthetic valve endocarditis: current approach and therapeutic options. Progress in cardiovascular diseases, 50(4):274-281.

Publisher | Google Scholar

29. Lalani T, Chu V.H, Park L.P, et al. (2013). In-hospital and 1-year mortality in patients undergoing early surgery for prosthetic valve endocarditis. JAMA internal medicine, 173(16):1495-1504.

Publisher | Google Scholar

30. Tornos P, Almirante B, Mirabet S, Permanyer G, Pahissa A, Soler-Soler J. (1999). Infective endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus: deleterious effect of anticoagulant therapy. Archives of internal medicine, 159(5):473-475.

Publisher | Google Scholar

31. Botelho-Nevers E, Thuny F, Casalta J P, et al. (2009). Dramatic reduction in infective endocarditis-related mortality with a management-based approach. Archives of internal medicine, 169(14):1290-1298.

Publisher | Google Scholar

32. Chirouze C, Alla F, Fowler V.G, et al. (2015). Impact of early valve surgery on outcome of Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic valve infective endocarditis: analysis in the International Collaboration of Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 60(5):741-749.

Publisher | Google Scholar

33. Athan E, Chu V.H, Tattevin P, et al. (2012). Clinical characteristics and outcome of infective endocarditis involving implantable cardiac devices. JAMA, 307(16):1727-1735.

Publisher | Google Scholar

34. Kang N, Wan S, Ng C.S, Underwood M.J. (2009). Periannular extension of infective endocarditis. Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery: official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia, 15(2):74-81.

Publisher | Google Scholar

35. Shapiro S, Kupferwasser L.I. (2001). Echocardiography predicts embolic events in infective endocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 37(4):1077-1079.

Publisher | Google Scholar

36. Barbosa L.Y.C, Feitoza L.M, Scomparin L.M, Conterno L.O, Reis F. (2025). Neurological Complications of Infective Endocarditis. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 58, e03192025.

Publisher | Google Scholar

33

Views

Keywords (categories)
Endocarditis Surgery Multidisciplinary