ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Evolution of Management and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis After Introducing the Endocarditis Team.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend discussing patients with infective endocarditis in an endocarditis team (ET). The benefits of an ET have been established, but not the evolution over time.
objectivesThe objective of the study was to investigate changes in management and outcomes in infective endocarditis over time.
methodsAll patients discussed by our ET since 2016 were prospectively included and divided into 3 cohorts. Trends over time for the number of discussions, diagnostics, ET recommendations, treatment, and outcomes were assessed using Poisson, logistic, and Cox regression, respectively, adjusted for potential case mix.
resultsThe total cohort included 1,042 patients, with 223, 364, and 455 patients in cohorts 1 (2016-2018), 2 (2019-2021), and 3 (2022-2024), respectively. The percentage of patients with a rediscussion increased with 18.2% (P < 0.001), and the number of discussions per patient increased with 3% per diagnosis-year (P = 0.006). The percentage of patients with positive blood cultures decreased with 17.5% (P < 0.001), whereas cardiac computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) CT usage increased with 3.1% (P = 0.028) and 12.5% (P < 0.001), respectively. Advice for additional diagnostic tests decreased by 11.6% (P < 0.001), and treatment change decreased by 18.3% (P < 0.001). Reclassification of the initial diagnosis increased with 8.3% (P = 0.045). Relapse (P = 0.82) and reinfection rates did not change (P = 0.98). One-year survival was approximately 80% and remained stable (P = 0.62).
conclusionsThere were more referrals and rediscussions, but less need for additional advice, reflecting increased familiarity with and a learning effect of the ET. CT and PET-CT were used more often. Mortality did not change over time and remained high.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.