Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Infective Endocarditis in Intravenous Drug Users: Surgical Treatment

Written By

Moldovan Horatiu, Adrian Molnar, Victor Costache and Ecaterina Bontas

Reviewed: 24 January 2019 Published: 01 March 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.84708

From the Edited Volume

Infective Endocarditis

Edited by Peter Magnusson and Robin Razmi

Chapter metrics overview

1,113 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Intravenous drug use is associated with infective endocarditis. Besides, it does appear that left-sided infective endocarditis is a feature of general population, whereas right-sided infective endocarditis is common in intravenous drug users. The most common etiology of right-sided infective endocarditis in intravenous drug users is Staphylococcus aureus in about 75% followed by streptococci, Gram-negative bacilli and fungi. In case of intravenous drug users with infective endocarditis, optimal treatment strategies lack a general consensus. Additionally, the best indication and timing of surgery are debatable. To overcome these problems, the early and complete surgical debridement of infected tissue together with microbial therapy assures a good prognosis in the long term.


  • endocarditis
  • drug-associated endocarditis
  • intravenous drug abuser endocarditis
  • intravenous drug users
  • right heart endocarditis

1. Introduction

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare infectious disease with elevated morbidity and mortality [1]. Intravenous drug use is associated with infective endocarditis (IE) [2]. To the best of our knowledge, IE accounts for 2–5% per year among the intravenous drug users (IDUs) [3, 4, 5, 6]. Approximately 41% of IDUs with bacteremia will develop IE [7]. Conversely, it is widely agreed that intravenous drug users (IDUs) diagnosed with IE are mainly white young males [8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

Right-sided infective endocarditis has been mainly defined among IDUs [13, 14, 15]. Generally, right-sided IE comprises 5–10% of cases with IE [16, 17, 18]. It does appear that left-sided IE is a feature of general population, whereas right-sided IE is common in IDUs [19, 20, 21]. To further characterize, IDUs may present in 86% cases right-sided IE, whereas 14% have left-sided IE with or without right-sided IE [21]. However, some older data outlines that the IDUs group may present equal incidence of left-sided and right-sided IE [22].

Common predisposing factors for right-sided IE are the intravenous drug users (IDUs), catheter-related infections, pacemaker or defibrillators wires, intracardiac devices (catheters for hemodialysis; tricuspid prosthetic valve), right heart catheterization, congenital heart defects, sepsis, and alcoholism [13, 14, 15, 23]. In case of the right-sided IE, tricuspid valve is affected in 90% cases [21], whereas pulmonic valve represents about 10% from right-sided IE cases [3, 18, 24]. Up to now, isolated right-sided IE involving the pulmonary valve, the eustachian valve, interventricular septum, or right ventricular free wall have been described [17, 21, 25].


2. Microbiology

According to current evidence, IE among IDUs presents a large spectrum of microbial pathogens (Table 1) [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31].

  • Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci,

  • group A streptococci,

  • P. aeruginosa,

  • HACEK organisms (Haemophilus aphrophilus, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Cardiobacterium hominis, Eikenella corrodens, and Kingella kingae),

  • Tetanus (Clostridium tetani),

  • Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis),

  • wound botulism (Clostridium botulinum),

  • tuberculosis,

  • diphtheria (Corynebacterium diphtheriae),

  • viruses (HIV, HBV with HDV, HCV, and HTLV),

  • fungal infections (Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp.),

  • parasitic infections (malaria and leishmaniasis)

Table 1.

Spectrum of microbial pathogens may constitute comorbidity in IDUs [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31].

Pathogens as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, other gram-negative microorganisms, fungi, enterococci, streptococci, and polymicrobial infections occur less frequently [16]. Importantly, other pathogens noted in IDUs are oral bacteria such as Prevotella intermedia, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, S. constellatus, and E. corrodens [32, 33, 34, 35, 36].

The most common etiology of right-sided IE in IDUs is Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) in about 75% [1, 4, 6, 37, 38, 39] followed by streptococci, Gram-negative bacilli, and fungi [40]. In fact, published data supports the involvement of S. aureus among IDUs in 40–74% cases of IE [38, 41, 42]. S. aureus is the most common cause of tricuspid valve endocarditis regardless of associated risk factors in IDUs [1, 4, 16, 18, 43].

The incidence of negative blood cultures is reported as 2.5–31% and is associated with delayed diagnosis and treatment [44], with large vegetations [45], and with highest morbidity and mortality [16, 45, 46].

Regarding HIV, a prevalence of HIV as high as 60% among IDUs has been reported by centers from Europe and the USA [11, 40]. HIV is more common among IDUs with right-sided IE than left-sided IE [47].

Polymicrobial endocarditis is characteristically for IDUs [48] and may involve microorganisms such as Bartonella spp., Candida spp., or Tropheryma whipplei [49]. The presence of E. corrodens should aware the likelihood of polymicrobial IE with embolic complications and relapses. In fact, there is a synergism between streptococci and E. corrodens [50, 51, 52].


3. Diagnosis

History and classic Oslerian manifestations (persistent bacteremia or fungemia, active valvulitis, immunological vascular phenomena, and peripheral emboli) help with a straightforward diagnosis in IE [1]. Typical clinical manifestations of IE comprise fever, positive blood cultures, and valvular vegetations on echocardiography [53]. IE should be suspected in the presence of fever and embolic phenomena [16]. Persistent fever and bacteremia are common manifestations of tricuspid valve IE [16].

Clinical manifestations are usually limited in the early IE of IDUs, right-sided endocarditis and S. aureus [1]. Right-sided IE mainly present fever, cough, hemoptysis, dyspnea caused by pulmonary emboli, anemia, and no systemic emboli [23]. Characteristically, right-sided IE does not develop immunological vascular phenomena (splinter hemorrhages, Roth spots, and glomerulonephritis) and the peripheral emboli [1]. Right-sided IE can be associated with septic pulmonary emboli [1]. In fact, pulmonary embolism is often present in right-sided IE and pacemaker wires IE [16].

Usually, the association of clinical findings, positive blood cultures, and positive echocardiography set up the diagnosis [23]. However, these typical clinical manifestations of IE are often absent among IDUs, especially in those infected with S. aureus and HACEK (Haemophilus species, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Cardiobacterium hominis, Eikenella corrodens, Kingella kingae) [54]. Common complications of right-sided IE are valvular regurgitations, cardiac abscess, and septic pulmonary emboli [55].

Relapse and reinfection are two types of recurrence [16]. Basically, recurrence within 6 months of same IE produced by same microorganisms is termed relapse [55]. Reinfection or recurrent IE refers to the recurrence of same IE with same microorganisms after 6 months from initial episode [53]. Recurrent IE has higher frequency in IDUs with increased valve replacement [16] with a reported incidence as 41% [56].

The landmark lesion of IE is the vegetation (Figure 1) [57]. In this context, IDUs population with vegetations >20 mm may present higher embolic risk [58] and higher mortality as well [25, 58, 59].

Figure 1.

Macroscopy and microscopy of the involved tricuspid valve and vegetation. (a) Yellow arrowhead: the large vegetation, blue arrowhead: rupture main chordae tendineae. (b) Blue arrowheads: multiple verrucous nodular vegetation on the atrial surface of leaflet. (c) Resected tricuspid valve. Blue arrowheads: multiple small vegetations, yellow arrowhead: rupture main chordae tendineae. (d) Microscopy of the vegetation adhered to the leaflet, magnification 4×, hematoxylin and Eosin stain. (e) Enlarged square area in (e) showing inflammatory cell infiltration and fibrin-platelet thrombi, magnification 20×, hematoxylin and Eosin stain. NOTE: every figure specifies this sentence beginning: From Bai et al. [57]. It 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 work is properly credited.

The cornerstone of imaging diagnosing for infective endocarditis is echocardiography [16]. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and/or transesophageal echocardiography (TOE) are vital in the diagnosis of any IE [16]. TTE is the first line recommendation either for native valve endocarditis or for prosthetic valve endocarditis. In case of suspected native valve endocarditis, TTE has a sensitivity of 50–90% and a specificity of 90% [60]. For IE with vegetation, TTE has a moderate sensitivity (75%) and high specificity (>90%) [61]. For suspected prosthetic valve endocarditis, TTE has a reduced sensitivity of 40–70%. However, TTE comes up with significant information regarding ventricular size and function, and “hemodynamic severity of valve lesions” [60]. Major criteria in the diagnosis of IE are represented by three echocardiographic features: vegetation, abscess or pseudoaneurysm, and prosthetic valve with new dehiscence [16]. Moreover, TTE provides useful information in the diagnosis of anterior prosthetic aortic valve abscesses, which are difficult to be seen on TEE [60].

TOE is recommended when TTE is nondiagnostic or positive, suspected complications, or in presence of intracardiac device leads [60]. In case of native valve endocarditis, TOE has a sensitivity of 90–100% and a specificity of 90% for revealing vegetations. As such, TOE is highly superior to TOE regarding the detection of abscesses, perforations, and fistulae [60]. TOE has higher sensibility in the detection of pulmonary vegetations [62]. When clinical manifestations sustain IE with negative or unclear TTE, TOE has high sensitivity (>90%) and may reveal: (1) vegetations; (2) paravalvular or intracardiac abscess, (3) new valvular regurgitations, and (4) prosthetic valve dehiscence (Figure 2) [57, 63, 64].

Figure 2.

Transesophageal echocardiography images of the patient before surgery. (a) Tricuspid regurgitation, Yellow arrowhead: wide and reversed blood flow signals at TV site. (b) A large vegetation formation. Yellow arrowhead: a large vegetation adheres to anterior leaflet of TV. (c) Suspicious multiple vegetations on 3D echo image. Yellow arrowheads: multiple verrucous abnormal nodular projections on the leaflet surface. RA right atrium, RV right ventricle, LA left atrium, LV left ventricle, TV tricuspid valve. NOTE: every figure specifies this sentence beginning: From Bai et al. [57]. It 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 work is properly credited.

Currently, 3D TOE provides useful information about the morphology and size of vegetation, evaluation of perivalvular extension, dehiscence of prosthetic valve, and valve perforation [65].

Other imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), multislice computed tomography (MSCT), and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) are also valuable for the diagnosis of IE [16]. MSCT, MRI, and cardiac CT can provide greater information when compared with TEE regarding either paravalvular anatomy or complications (e.g. mycotic aneurysms, paravalvular abscesses) with lesser prosthetic valve artifacts [60]. Currently, using CT imaging in the diagnosis of paravalvular lesions is a major criterion in the 2015 ESC guidelines on IE [16].

Modified Duke criteria (2000) for diagnostic classification are well-known [64] and reviewed by 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis [16]. Only that, these modified Duke criteria have poorer diagnostic precision in the early diagnosis of IE from IDUs, which present fewer typical clinical manifestations [16]. The addition of imagistic techniques cardiac/whole-body CT scan, cerebral MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, and radiolabelled leucocyte SPECT/CT may increase accuracy of the modified Duke criteria in IDUs. To sum up, these modified Duke criteria are useful, but they do not substitute the decision of a multidisciplinary team or of the “Endocarditis Team” that is defined later [16].


4. Treatment

The initial treatment of IE is empirical in majority of cases [1]. Consistent with published data, the main effective treatment is medical therapy, whilst surgery is a choice in smaller cases [16]. So that, medical treatment in right-sided IE of IDUs is usually effective with good prognosis up to 80% cases [16, 23, 66].

S. aureus is the most frequent cause of IE in IDUs; as a result, medical treatment should cover this pathogen [16]. Short courses of antimicrobial therapy in right-sided IE with S. aureus in IDUs assure high cure rates (>85%) [1].

A short course (2 weeks) with oxacillin or cloxacillin is mainly sufficient [16]. Initial therapy comprises penicillinase-resistant penicillins, vancomycin, or daptomycin in combination with gentamicin [16]. Short course (2 weeks) with oxacillin or cloxacillin is mainly efficient for isolated tricuspid IE with good compliance to therapy, vegetation <20 mm, MSSA, without empyema or other metastatic sites of infection, without prosthetic valve or left-sided IE, without cardiac/extracardiac complications and without severe immunosuppression (<200CD4 cells/μL) with/without AIDS. Anti-pseudomonas agent should be added in pentazocine addict [59]. Antifungal therapy for Candida spp. is added when an IDU utilizes brown heroin combined with lemon juice [67].

A traditional approach for the treatment of right-sided IE is the regimen formed from gentamicin with nafcillin or oxacillin. Another approach of IDUs with right-sided S. aureus IE and no other complications (e.g. aortic or mitral valve involvement, extra pulmonary infections or meningitis, renal failure, MRSA infection) is the antimicrobial coverage with short-course (2 weeks) of beta-lactam plus aminoglycoside that may be greatly successful [1]. Current guidelines still suggest the use of gentamicin, but some available data suggest that it might be unnecessary [68].

Moreover, daptomycin monotherapy is approved for the therapy of S. aureus bacteremia or right-sided S. aureus IE [69]. If laboratory evaluation shows opiate withdrawal, 10–20 mg of long-acting methadone can be prescribed until the regular doses are established [70].

To sum up, it is problematic to treat IE in IDUs because of the frequent exposures to virulent microorganisms; poor compliance with treatment; illegal drug use or withdrawal manifestations during hospitalization; opioid maintenance therapy; and early self-discharge or long hospitalization [70, 71]. Regardless of correct antimicrobial therapy, IDUs develop relapsing IE [56, 72, 73].


5. Surgery

Surgery is not a contraindication for IDUs with IE [4]. However, surgery indications are complex and are based on the clinical manifestations, associated risk factors (e.g. age, microorganisms, size of vegetation, perivalvular infection, embolism, heart failure, and other associated comorbidities) and the expertise of surgery team [1]. A multidisciplinary team or the “Endocarditis team” with knowledge in cardiology, infectious diseases, microbiologists, imaging, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and cardiothoracic surgery should provide decisions regarding the indication and timing of surgery [1]. Cardiac surgery in IDUs with IE aims to remove infection with hemodynamics stabilization hemodynamic may be suggested for IDUs [74].

In terms of surgery, right-sided IE has better outcomes than left-sided IE [1]. General approach of IDUs with right-sided IE is medical therapy and to delay as much as possible the use of valve prostheses [1].

Surgical treatment indications for right-sided IE are following [1, 16, 28, 75]:

  • TV vegetations >20 mm after recurrent septic pulmonary emboli with or without right heart failure;

  • Severe tricuspid regurgitation with right heart failure unresponsive to medical therapy;

  • IE with fungi or persistent bacteremia with virulent microorganisms for at least 7 days (e.g., S. aureus, P. aeruginosa) regardless of the antimicrobial therapy.

5.1 Timing of surgery

Only 5–16% of IDUs needs surgery [76, 77, 78]. However, if left-sided IE has clear indications for early surgery, and the indications for early surgery in right-sided IE are not established presently [79].

The strategy to delay surgery until the microbial therapy is accomplished and may decrease morbidity and mortality rates significantly. In keeping with published data, early surgery is a choice in case of IE with Staphylococcus aureus or fungal infection [1, 16, 80]. Early surgery of tricuspid valve IE is considered when associates (1) atrial septal defect; (2) prosthetic valve endocarditis; (3) infected pacing leads; (4) indwelling catheters; and (5) simultaneous left-sided IE [81, 82]. Additionally, development of bacteremia or pulmonary septic emboli also has early surgery.

5.2 Surgical techniques

The principles of surgery for tricuspid valve IE comprise debridement of infected tissue; excision of vegetations with valve conservation or valve repair; and removal of the TV with its replacement [16, 76, 81]. In case of native pulmonary valve, its preservation is usually recommended. If pulmonary replacement is mandatory, the utilization of a homograft or xenograft is favored.

Various techniques that are used in cardiac surgery for right-sided IE [71, 81, 82]:

  • vegetectomy (excision of vegetations)

  • valvulectomy (total removal of valve leaflets and chordate tendineae)

  • valvectomy (valve excision)

  • reconstruction of the cusps (e.g. bicuspidization or conversion to a bicuspid valve)

  • pericardial patch augmentation

  • Kay’s or De Vega’s annuloplasty

  • annuloplasty ring implantation

  • synthetic or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) neo-chords

  • valve replacement (bioprosthetic, mechanical prostheses).

Importantly, first line of surgical techniques in IDUs is vegetectomy and valve repair [23].

Valve repair is mainly achieved with autologous pericardial patch, artificial chordae, and simple annuloplasty with sutures (Kay’s or De Vega annuloplasty) [23]. Ruptured chordae may be restored with polytetrafluoroethylene neo-chordae [16].

In a single perforated valve leaflet (cusp) can be used either untreated or glutaraldehyde-treated autologous or bovine pericardial patch [16]. Pericardial patch reconstruction aims to avoid the use of any prosthetic materials [23]. Autologous pericardial patch repairs small defects by direct closure in case of one leaflet. It is also used in wide excision or debridement of one leaflet or two leaflets [23].

Bicuspidalization annuloplasty is done after total excision of the posterior leaflet of tricuspid valve. Importantly, septal leaflet excision of TV has high risk of postoperative atrio-ventricular block [23]. This technique is accomplished either by Kay’s annuloplasty or De Vega annuloplasty. Both Kay’s annuloplasty and De Vega annuloplasty are the first choices indication for valve repair mainly in IDUs [23]. After broad resection (>75%) of the anterior leaflet of TV, it is recommended using of prosthetic or pericardial annular ring [23].

Kay’s annuloplasty is mainly done after the total resection of a leaflet, and it is accomplished by the placement of fixing sutures in the corresponding segment of annulus to create a bicuspid valve [23].

De Vega annuloplasty (Figures 3 and 4) is based on fixing of two semi-circular purse string sutures between the anteroseptal commissure to the posteroseptal commissure with tricuspid annular reduction [23, 83]. This leads to the coaptation of the residual two leaflets.

Figure 3.

Operative procedures. (A) After the prolapsed leaflet segments and chordae were excised, the anterior commissural defect was made. (B) The defect was closed with an elliptical pericardial patch of 2.0 × 1.0 cm size. An adjustable DeVega-type annuloplasty using two continuous 5–0 Polypropylene sutures was performed to select an appropriate-size ring for complete leaflet coaptation. (C) A 26-mm Edward MC3 ring was placed using two interrupted, pledgeted 2–0 Dacron sutures and two continuous 3–0 polypropylene sutures. The anterior horn of the rigid ring (black arrow) was sutured to the medial end of the patch. NOTE: every figure specifies this sentence beginning: From Kim et al. [83]. It 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 work is properly credited.

Figure 4.

Operative findings. (A) The anterior commissure defect was closed with a patch (white arrow) and a rigid ring was placed along the functional valve opening. (B) The valve leaflets showed complete coaptation (white arrow) on saline test. NOTE: every figure specifies this sentence beginning: From Kim et al. [83]. It 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 work is properly credited.

Valve replacement. Valve replacement is required in case of a large destroyed valve with increased pulmonary pressures and pulmonary vascular resistance [16, 76, 81]. It also requires the absence of drug addiction during surgery and after surgery [23]. Presently, it is recommended tricuspid valve excision for right-sided IE in IDUs [23].

Valve replacement in IDUs is correlated with greater risk for recurrent infection and redo surgery (re-operation) [81]. It seems that mechanical prostheses and xenografts have similar outcomes [16]. However, recurrence of IE is mainly unchanged for mechanical and bioprosthetic valves [84]. Placement of a bioprosthetic valve may be challenging in case of IDUs with endocarditis considering the low compliance of IDUs for any treatment, risk of recurrent infections, risk of redo surgery, or valve generation. HIV is not a contraindication for surgery having good prognosis after it [85].

An important concern of tricuspid valve surgery is the damage of conduction system, which is higher in TV replacement [81, 86]. For instance, in case of 910 surgeries for tricuspid valve IE, there was higher risk of heart block in TV replacement (16%) versus TV repair (3%, p < 0.0001) [86].

Despite of published data supporting the greater risk of morbidity and mortality for multiple valve endocarditis [87], Weymann et al. outlined that single-valve endocarditis or multiple valve involvement have no different operative or postoperative risks [88]. In any type of prosthesis, survival on long-term is similar in any tricuspid valve replacement with prosthesis [89, 90]. Homograft tissue valve may be used after valvectomy mainly with cryopreserved mitral homograft [23].

IDUs have a greater mortality rate in comparison with the general population [91, 92]. However, right-sided IE treated surgically has good outcomes in the early, mid-term, and long-term [86]. Significant risk factors for poor prognosis in IDUs treated surgically are interrelated with the Staphylococcus aureus and fungi or polymicrobial IE, late presentation in critical condition, with the vegetation size, and with left-sided IE [93].

Taking into account the current guidelines of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Workforce on Evidence Based Surgery, European Society of Cardiology, and The European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the first line recommendation (Class Ia) in IE for IDUs is the excision of infected tissue (vegetation) with valve repair. Furthermore, the second line recommendation (Class IIa) is tricuspid valve replacement. Bioprosthesis is the principal choice in TV replacement in IDUs, because mechanical valve needs long life anticoagulation [16, 23, 39, 81, 94, 95].

A conservative approach is recommended by European Society of Cardiology in case of IDUs which present greater risk of recurrent infection. When valve replacement is necessary, bioprosthesis decreases the thromboembolism risk with no anticoagulant therapy on long term. On the other side, younger IDUs are disposed to redo surgery or re-operation either because of recurrent infection or valve degeneration (Figure 5) [16, 96]. Moreover, valvectomy is the last choice to valve repair or valve replacement in IDUs with greater risk of recurrent infection. The valvectomy technique eludes the use of prosthetic material but is limited by residual severe tricuspid regurgitation with right heart failure. Published data supports this technique because of its long-term survival after complete valvectomy. For instance, one study of Gaca et al. reports tricuspid valvectomy as first choice only in 66 cases from 910 patients (7.3%) [86].

Figure 5.

The damaged bioprosthetic tricuspid valve with vegetations. NOTE: every figure specifies this sentence beginning: From Chen et al. [96]. It 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 you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Recurrence of IE is characteristically for IDUs [23, 97]. However, the best indication and timing of surgery are debatable [98]. Prognosis of IE in IDUs has good outcomes with mortality <5% [23]. Right-sided IE has a good prognosis with lower in-hospital mortality. As well, right-sided IE has a lower morbidity and mortality with better prognosis than left-sided IE but with greater early mortality rate [11, 21, 99]. Higher mortality in IDUs with right-sided IE is associated with vegetations >20 mm, fungal endocarditis, bacteremia, and older age [4, 13, 21, 59]. To sum up, the early and complete surgical debridement of infected tissue together with microbial therapy assures a good prognosis on long term [88].


6. Conclusions

Right-sided IE is the primarily disease that affects IDUs and patients with congenital heart diseases [16]. Diagnostic findings comprise fever and respiratory symptoms [16]. In the main part of cases, S. aureus is responsible pathogen [16]. For IDUs with IE, optimal treatment strategies lack a general consensus. Majority of strategies are applied based on the team experience and the patient. Furthermore, this absence of evidence-based guidelines highlights that any IE should be managed by an “Endocarditis Team” [86]. Surgery is a choice only for difficult evolution, failure of medical therapy, or recurrent septic emboli to the lungs or paradoxical emboli [16].


Conflict of interest

There are no disclosures.


  1. 1. Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG Jr, Tleyjeh IM, Rybak MJ, et al. Infective Endocarditis in Adults: Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Therapy, and Management of Complications: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132(15):1435-1486. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000296
  2. 2. Gordon RJ, Lowy FD. Bacterial infections in drug users. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2005;353:1945-1954
  3. 3. Miró JM, del Río A, Mestres CA. Infective endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers and HIV-1 infected patients. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America. 2002;16:273-295
  4. 4. Miro JM, del Rio A, Mestres CA. Infective endocarditis and cardiac surgery in intravenous drug abusers and HIV-1 infected patients. Cardiology Clinics. 2003;9:167-184. DOI: 10.1016/S0733-8651(03)00025-0
  5. 5. Shrestha NK, Jue J, Hussain ST, Jerry JM, et al. Injection drug use and outcomes after surgical intervention for infective endocarditis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2015;100:875-882. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.03.019
  6. 6. Frontera JA, Gradon JD. Right-side endocarditis in injection drug users: Review of proposed mechanisms of pathogenesis. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2000;30(2):374-379
  7. 7. Starakis I, Mazokopakis EE. Injecting illicit substances epidemic and infective endocarditis. Infectious Disorders Drug Targets. 2010;10(1):22-26
  8. 8. Ronan MV, Herzig SJ. Hospitalizations related to opioid abuse/dependence and associated serious infections increased sharply, 2002-2012. Health Affairs (Millwood). 1 May 2016;35(5):832-837. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1424
  9. 9. Wurcel AG, Anderson JE, Chui KK, et al. Increasing infectious endocarditis admissions among young people who inject drugs. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2016;3:ofw157. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofw157 9
  10. 10. Hartman L, Barnes E, Bachmann L, Schafer K, Lovato J, Files DC. Opiate injection-associated infective endocarditis in the southeastern United States. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 2016;352:603-608. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjms.2016.08.010
  11. 11. Ortiz-Bautista C, Lopez J, Garcia-Granja PE, Sevilla T, Vilacosta I, Sarria C, et al. Current profile of infective endocarditis in intravenous drug users: The prognostic relevance of the valves involved. International Journal of Cardiology. 2015;187:472-474
  12. 12. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville: (NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. SMA 14-4863) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2014
  13. 13. Otome O, Guy S, Tramontana A, Lane G, Karunajeewa H. A retrospective review: Significance of vegetation size in injection drug users with right-sided infective endocarditis. Heart, Lung & Circulation. 2016;25(5):466-470
  14. 14. Yamashita S, Noma K, Kuwata G, Miyoshi K, Honaga K. Infective endocarditis at the tricuspid valve following central venous catheterization. Journal of Anesthesia. 2005;19(1):84-87
  15. 15. Armstrong ML, DeBoer S, Cetta F. Infective endocarditis after body art: A review of the literature and concerns. The Journal of Adolescent Health. 2008;43(3):217-225
  16. 16. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. 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. 2015;36(44):3075-3128
  17. 17. Chan P, Ogilby J, Segal B. Tricuspid valve endocarditis. American Heart Journal. 1989;117(5):1140-1146
  18. 18. Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miró JM, Fowler VG Jr, Bayer AS, et al. International collaboration on endocarditis-prospective cohort study (ICE-PCS) investigators. Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the international collaboration on endocarditis-prospective cohort study. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2009;169(5):463-473
  19. 19. Crane LR, Levine DP, Zervos MJ, et al. Bacteremia in narcotic addicts at the Detroit Medical Centre. Microbiology, epidemiology, risk factors and empiric therapy. Reviews of Infectious Diseases. 1986;8:364-373
  20. 20. Oylumlu M et al. Both-sided native valve endocarditis in an intravenous drug misuser. BML Case Reports. 2013;2013:bcr2013201980. DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2013-201980
  21. 21. Moss R, Munt B. Injection drug use and right sided endocarditis. Heart. 2003;89:577-581
  22. 22. Mathew J, Addai T, Anand A, Morrobel A, Maheshwari P, Freels S. Clinical features, site of involvement, bacteriologic findings, and outcome of infective endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1995;155(15):1641-1648
  23. 23. Akinosoglou K, Apostolakis E, Koutsogiannis N, Leivaditis V, Gogos CA. Right-sided infective endocarditis: Surgical management. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2012 Sep;42(3):470-479. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs084
  24. 24. Faber M, Frimodt-Møller N, Espersen F, Skinhøj P, Rosdahl V. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in Danish intravenous drug users: High proportion of left sided endocarditis. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1995;27:483-487
  25. 25. Hecht SR, Berger M. Right-sided endocarditis in intravenous drug users: Prognostic features in 102 episodes. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1992;117:560-566
  26. 26. Chu VH, Park LP, Athan E, Delahaye F, Freiberger T, Lamas C, et al. Association between surgical indications, operative risk, and clinical outcome in infective endocarditis: A prospective study from the international collaboration on endocarditis. Circulation. 2015;131:131-140
  27. 27. Ternhag A, Cederstrom A, Torner A, Westling K. A nationwide cohort study of mortality risk and long-term prognosis in infective endocarditis in Sweden. PLoS One. 2013;8:e67519
  28. 28. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: Executive summary: A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129:2440-2492. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000029
  29. 29. Shih CJ, Chu H, Chao PW, Lee YJ, Kuo SC, Li SY, et al. Long-term clinical outcome of major adverse cardiac events in survivors of infective endocarditis: A nationwide population-based study. Circulation. 2014;130:1684-1691
  30. 30. Kaushik KS, Kapila K, Praharaj AK. Shooting up: The interface of microbial infections and drug abuse. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2011;60(Pt 4):408-422. DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.027540-0
  31. 31. Yong MS, Coffey S, Prendergast BD, Marasco SF, Zimmet AD, McGiffin DC, et al. Surgical management of tricuspid valve endocarditis in the current era: A review. International Journal of Cardiology. 2016;202:44-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.08.211
  32. 32. Mah MW, Shafran SD. Polymicrobial endocarditis with eight pathogens in an intravenous drug abuser. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1990;22(6):735-737
  33. 33. Oh S, Havlen PR, Hussain N. A case of polymicrobial endocarditis caused by anaerobic organisms in an injection drug user. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005;20(10):958
  34. 34. Silpa M, D’Angelo J. Eikenella corrodens infections in drug abusers. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1980;92(6):871
  35. 35. Raucher B, Dobkin J, Mandel L, Edberg S, Levi M, Miller M. Occult polymicrobial endocarditis with Haemophilus parainfluenzae in intravenous drug abusers. The American Journal of Medicine. 1989;86(2):169-172
  36. 36. Deutscher M, Perlman DC. Why some injection drug users lick their needles: A preliminary survey. The International Journal on Drug Policy. 2008;19(4):342-345
  37. 37. Lee MR, Chang SA, Choi SH, Lee GY, Kim EK, Peck KR, et al. Clinical features of right-sided infective endocarditis occurring in non-drug users. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2014;29(6):776-781
  38. 38. Kaiser SP, Melby SJ, Zierer A, Schuessler RB, Moon MR, Moazami N, et al. Long-term outcomes in valve replacement surgery for infective endocarditis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2007;83:30-35
  39. 39. Rabkin DG, Mokadam NA, Miller DW, Goetz RR, Verrier ED, Aldea GS. Long-term outcome for the surgical treatment of infective endocarditis with a focus on intravenous drug users. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2012;93:51-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.08.016
  40. 40. Wilson LE, Thomas DL, Astemborski J, et al. Prospective study of infective endocarditis among injection drug users. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2002;185:1761-1766
  41. 41. Chu VH, Sexton DJ, Cabell CH, Reller LB, Pappas PA, Singh RK, et al. Repeat infective endocarditis: Differentiating relapse from reinfection. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2005;41:406-409
  42. 42. Sousa C, Botelho C, Rodrigues D, Azeredo J, Oliveira R. Infective endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers: An update. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2012;31:2905-2910
  43. 43. Baraki H, Saito S, Al Ahmad A, et al. Surgical treatment for isolated tricuspid valve endocarditis- long-term follow-up at a single institution. Circulation Journal. 2013;77:2032-2037. DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-12-1364
  44. 44. Lamas CC, Eykyn SJ. Blood culture negative endocarditis: Analysis of 63 cases presenting over 25 years. Heart. 2003;89(3):258-262
  45. 45. Lowes JA, Hamer J, Williams G, Houang E, Tabaqchali S, Shaw EJ, et al. 10 years of infective endocarditis at St. Bartholomew's hospital: Analysis of clinical features and treatment in relation to prognosis and mortality. Lancet. 1980;1(8160):133-136
  46. 46. Cabell CH, Abrutyn E, Fowler VG Jr, et al. Use of surgery in patients with native valve infective endocarditis: Results from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database. American Heart Journal. 2005;150:1092-1098. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.03.057
  47. 47. Cicalini S, Forcina G, De Rosa FG. Infective endocarditis in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. The Journal of Infection. 2001;42:267-271
  48. 48. Levine DP, Crane LR, Zervos MJ. Bacteremia in narcotic addicts at the Detroit Medical Center. II. Infectious endocarditis: A prospective comparative study. Reviews of Infectious Diseases. 1986;8(3):374-396
  49. 49. Moreillon P, Que YA. Infective endocarditis. Lancet. 2004;363:139-149. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15266-X
  50. 50. Wanahita A, Goldsmith EA, Musher DM, Clarridge JE 3rd, Rubio J, Krishnan B, et al. Interaction between human polymorphonuclear leukocytes and Streptococcus milleri group bacteria. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2002;185(1):85-90
  51. 51. Young KA, Allaker RP, Hardie JM, Whiley RA. Interactions between Eikenella corrodens and ‘Streptococcus milleri-group’ organisms: Possible mechanisms of pathogenicity in mixed infections. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1996;69(4):371-373
  52. 52. Bottone EJ, Kittick J Jr, Schneierson SS. Isolation of bacillus HB-1 from human clinical sources. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 1973;59(4):5606
  53. 53. Cahill TJ, Prendergast BD. Infective endocarditis. Lancet. 2016;387(10021):882
  54. 54. Bayer AS, Bolger AF, Taubert KA, Wilson W, Steckelberg J, Karchmer AW, et al. Diagnosis and management of infective endocarditis and its complications. Circulation. 1998;9:2936-2948. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.98.25.2936
  55. 55. Yuan SM. Right-sided infective endocarditis: Recent epidemiologic changes. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2014;7(1):199-218
  56. 56. Welton DE, Young JB, Gentry WO. Recurrent infective endocarditis. Analysis of predisposing factors and clinical features. The American Journal of Medicine. 1979;66(6):932-938
  57. 57. Bai Z, Hou J, Ren W, Guo Y. Diagnosis and surgical treatment for isolated tricuspid Libman-Sacks endocarditis: A rare case report and literatures review. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2015;10:93. DOI: 10.1186/s13019-015-0302-1
  58. 58. Leitman M, Dreznik Y, Tyomkin V, et al. Vegetation size in patients with infective endocarditis. European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging. 2012;13(4):330-338
  59. 59. Martín-Dávila P, Navas E, Fortún J, et al. Analysis of mortality and risk factors associated with native valve endocarditis in drug users: The importance of vegetation size. American Heart Journal. 2005;150(5):1099-1106
  60. 60. Cahill TJ, Baddour LM, Habib G, Hoen B, Salaun E, Pettersson GB, et al. Challenges in infective endocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017;69(3):325-344. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.066
  61. 61. Habib G, Badano L, Tribouilloy C, Vilacosta I, Zamorano JL, Galderisi M, et al. Recommendations for the practice of echocardiography in infective endocarditis. European Journal of Echocardiography. 2010;11(2):202-219
  62. 62. Winslow T, Foster E, Adams JR, Schiller NB. Pulmonary valve endocarditis: Improved diagnosis with biplane transesophageal echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 1992;5:206-210
  63. 63. Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK.New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: Utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke endocarditis service. The American Journal of Medicine. 1994;96(3):200-209
  64. 64. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, Nettles R, Fowler VGJ, Ryan T, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2000;30:633-638. DOI: 10.1086/313753
  65. 65. Liu YW, Tsai WC, Lin CC, Hsu CH, Li WT, Lin LJ, et al. Usefulness of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography for diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal. 2009;43:318-323
  66. 66. Westling K, Aufwerber E, Ekdahl C, Friman G, Gardlund B, Julander I, et al. Swedish guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2007;39:929-946
  67. 67. Bisbe J, Miro JM, Latorre X, Moreno A, Mallolas J, Gatell JM, et al. Disseminated candidiasis in addicts who use brown heroin: Report of 83 cases and review. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 1992;15:910-923
  68. 68. Ribera E, Gomez-Jimenez J, Cortes E, del Valle O, Planes A, Gonzalez-Alujas T, et al. Effectiveness of cloxacillin with and without gentamicin in short-term therapy for right-sided Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1996;125:969-974
  69. 69. Fowler VG Jr, Boucher HW, Corey GR, Abrutyn E, Karchmer AW, Rupp ME, et al. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2006;355:653-665. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa053783
  70. 70. Haber PS, Demirkol A, Lange K, Murnion B. Management of injecting drug users admitted to hospital. Lancet. 2009;374:1284-1293
  71. 71. Arbulu A, Holmes RJ, Asfaw I. Surgical treatment of intractable right-sided infective endocarditis in drug addicts: 25 years experience. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease. 1993;2:129-137; discussion 138-9
  72. 72. Carozza A, De Santo LS, Romano G, Della Corte A, Ursomando F, Scardone M, et al. Infective endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers: Patterns of presentation and longterm outcomes of surgical treatment. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease. 2006;15(1):125-131
  73. 73. Levison ME, Kaye D, Mandell GL, Hook EW. Characteristics of patients with multiple episodes of bacterial endocarditis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1970;211(8):1355-1357
  74. 74. Miljeteig I, Skrede S, Langorgen J, Haaverstad R, Josendal O, Sjursen H, et al. Should patients who use illicit drugs be offered a second heart-valve replacement? Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening: tidsskrift for praktisk medicinny raekke. 2013;133:977-980
  75. 75. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2006;114(5):e84-e231
  76. 76. Musci M, Siniawski H, Pasic M, Grauhan O, Weng Y, Meyer R, et al. Surgical treatment of right-sided active infective endocarditis with or without involvement of the left heart: 20-year single center experience. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2007;32:118-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.02.034
  77. 77. Sohail MR, Uslan DZ, Khan AH, Friedman PA, Hayes DL, Wilson WR, et al. Infective endocarditis complicating permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infection. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2008;83:46-53
  78. 78. Chrissoheris MP, Libertin C, Ali RG, Ghantous A, Bekui A, Donohue T. Endocarditis complicating central venous catheter bloodstream infections: A unique form of health care associated endocarditis. Clinical Cardiology. 2009;32:E48-E54
  79. 79. Denk K, Vahl CF. Infective endocarditis: Considerations regarding optimal timing for surgical treatment. Herz. 2009;34(3):198-205. DOI: 10.1007/s00059-009-3232-7
  80. 80. Gutierrez-Martin MA, Galvez-Aceval J, Araji OA. Indications for surgery and operative techniques in infective endocarditis in the present day. Infectious Disorders Drug Targets. 2010;10(1):32-46
  81. 81. Dawood MY, Cheema FH, Ghoreishi M, et al. Contemporary outcomes of operations for tricuspid valve infective endocarditis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2015;99:539-546. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.08.069
  82. 82. Yanagawa B, Elbatarny M, Verma S, Hill S, Mazine A, Puskas JD, et al. Surgical management of tricuspid valve infective endocarditis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2018;106(3):708-714. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.04.012
  83. 83. Kim JH, Kim KH, JB1 C, Kuh JH. Commissuroplasty for the anterior commissure defect caused by tricuspid valve endocarditis using patch closure and modified placement of a rigid ring. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2014;9:36. DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-9-36
  84. 84. Grover FL, Cohen DJ, Oprian C, Henderson WG, Sethi G, Hammermeister KE. Determinants of the occurrence of and survival from prosthetic valve endocarditis. Experience of the Veterans affairs cooperative study on valvular heart disease. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 1994;108:207-214
  85. 85. Mestres CA, Chuquiure JE, Claramonte X, Muñoz J, Benito N, Castro MA, et al. Long-term results after cardiac surgery in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus type-1. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2003;23:1007-1016
  86. 86. Gaca JG, Sheng S, Daneshmand M, et al. Current outcomes for tricuspid valve infective endocarditis surgery in North America. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2013;96:1374-1381. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.05.046
  87. 87. Kim N, Lazar JM, Cunha BA, Liao W, Minnaganti V. Multi-valvular endocarditis. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2000;6:207-212
  88. 88. Weymann A, Borst T, Popov AF, Sabashnikov A, Bowles C, Schmack B, et al. Surgical treatment of infective endocarditis in active intravenous drug users: A justified procedure? Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2014;9:58. DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-9-58
  89. 89. Filsoufi F, Anyanwu AC, Salzberg SP, et al. Long-term outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement in the current era. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2005;80:845-850. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.12.019
  90. 90. Chang BC, Lim SH, Yi G, et al. Long-term clinical results of tricuspid valve replacement. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2006;81:1317-1323, discussion 1323-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.11.005
  91. 91. Joe GW, Simpson DD. Mortality rates among opioid addicts in a longitudinal study. American Journal of Public Health. 1987;77:347-348
  92. 92. Frischer M, Goldberg D, Rahman M, Berney L. Mortality and survival among a cohort of drug injectors in Glasgow, 1982-1994. Addiction. 1997;92:419-427
  93. 93. Zhang L, Gao CQ, Jiang SL, Ren CL. Surgical treatment of isolated right-sided infective endocarditis. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2010;48(5):342-344
  94. 94. Gottardi R, Bialy J, Devyatko E, et al. Midterm follow-up of tricuspid valve reconstruction due to active infective endocarditis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2007;84:1943-1948. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.04.116
  95. 95. Tarola CL, Losenno KL, Chu MW. Complex tricuspid valve repair for infective endocarditis: Leaflet augmentation, chordae and annular reconstruction. Multimedia Manual of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2015;2015
  96. 96. Chen Q, Cao H, Lu H, Qiu ZH, He JJ. Bioprosthetic tricuspid valve endocarditis caused by Acinetobacter baumannii complex, a case report and brief review of the literature. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2015;10:149. DOI: 10.1186/s13019-015-0377-8
  97. 97. Fayad G, Modine T, Lions C, Polge AS, Azzaoui R, Larrue B, et al. Conservative surgical treatment for active infective tricuspid valve endocarditis according to the "clover technique". The Heart Surgery Forum. 2008;11(2):E120-E126. DOI: 10.1532/HSF98.20071188
  98. 98. Pang PY, Sin YK, Lim CH, Tan TE, Lim SL, Chao VT, et al. Surgical management of infective endocarditis: An analysis of early and late outcomes. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2015;47(5):826-832. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu281
  99. 99. Ortiz C, López J, García H, Sevilla T, Revilla A, Vilacosta I, et al. Clinical classification and prognosis of isolated right-sided infective endocarditis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014;93(27):e137

Written By

Moldovan Horatiu, Adrian Molnar, Victor Costache and Ecaterina Bontas

Reviewed: 24 January 2019 Published: 01 March 2019