Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Cardiovascular, Case Report
Cardiovascular, Editorial
Cardiovascular, Images in Cardiology
Cardiovascular, Interventional Round
Cardiovascular, Original Article
Cardiovascular, Preface
Cardiovascular, Review Article
Cardiovascular, Student’s Corner
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical Discussion
Clinical Rounds
CPC
Debate
Dedication
Editorial
Expert Comments
Expert's Opinion
Genetic Autopsy
Genetics Autopsy
Image in Cardiology
Images in Cardiology
Interventional Round
Interventional Rounds
Letter to the Editor
Media and news
Original Article
Practice in Medicine
Preface
Review Article
Scientific Paper
Short Communication
Student's Corner
WINCARS Activities
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Cardiovascular, Case Report
Cardiovascular, Editorial
Cardiovascular, Images in Cardiology
Cardiovascular, Interventional Round
Cardiovascular, Original Article
Cardiovascular, Preface
Cardiovascular, Review Article
Cardiovascular, Student’s Corner
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical Discussion
Clinical Rounds
CPC
Debate
Dedication
Editorial
Expert Comments
Expert's Opinion
Genetic Autopsy
Genetics Autopsy
Image in Cardiology
Images in Cardiology
Interventional Round
Interventional Rounds
Letter to the Editor
Media and news
Original Article
Practice in Medicine
Preface
Review Article
Scientific Paper
Short Communication
Student's Corner
WINCARS Activities
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Review Article
06 (
04
); 256-260
doi:
10.1055/s-0041-1742212

A Review of Brucella endocarditis

ASRAM Medical College, Department of Cardiology, ASRAMS, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh, India
Address for correspondence Tammiraju Iragavarapu, MD, DM Associate Professor ASRAM Medical College, Department of Cardiology ASRAMS, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh, 534005 India vmrtraju.mbbs@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher; therefore Scientific Scholar has no control over the quality or content of this article.

Abstract

Abstract

Brucella endocarditis is one of the rare, life-threatening complications of a multisystemic zoonotic disease, brucellosis. Careful history taking, clinical examinations, and detailed laboratory tests with special culture media in endemic zones help in diagnosis of this latent disease. No consensus on the exact management of this disease has reached till now. Hence, both medical management and surgical interventions in selective cases were the treatment of choice. This article provides a review of the earlier literature on Brucella endocarditis.

Keywords

Brucellosis
endocarditis
multimodality approach
combined management

Introduction

Brucellosis is a quiet challenging zoonotic disease caused by an aerobic gram-negative uncapsulated intracellular coccobacilli Brucella, with three species (B. melitensis, B. abortus, B. suis)1 (Fig. 1). It is mainly transmitted via unpasteurized dairy products, inhalation of contaminated aerosols, or contact with infected secretions. Because of its use in bioterrorism,2 it gathered more attention in recent years. In the present era of immunosuppression due to post-coronavirus disease 2019 illness, steroid abuse, there is every chance of resurgence of these illnesses. The key points of Brucella endocarditis (BE) were mentioned in Table 1.

Fig. 1 Gram's smear of culture showing gram negative Brucella melitensis bacillus.

Fig. 1 Gram's smear of culture showing gram negative Brucella melitensis bacillus.

Table 1:
Key points about Brucella endocarditis

Key Points to remember

• High index of suspicion is required for the diagnosis of Brucella endocarditis

  ○ In an endemic area

  ○ Contact with livestock

  ○ Culture negative endocarditis

• Careful examination is needed to pick up the signs and symptoms of early features of endocarditis in brucellosis

• Need to take the help of multiple investigations for the diagnosis of this latent organism

• Surgery is reserved for selective cases of refractory heart failure

• Combined medical and surgical treatment is needed to decrease the morbidity and mortality

Incidence and Prevalence

Brucellosis affects both adults and children and remains a major health problem in many developing regions.3 4 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 500,000 new brucellosis cases are reported each year with a prevalence of more than 10/100,000 population noted in endemic countries.5 The Middle East is the most common endemic zone for brucellosis with high prevalence in Mediterranean, Mexico, and South America. Way back in 1960, Peery and Belter6 in a necropsy study found endocarditis in 80% and abscess in 45% of total brucellosis. Osteoarticular system (25–30%) is most commonly affected followed by genitourinary, central nervous system, and cardiovascular system. Though the cardiovascular involvement is <2% causing endocarditis, it accounts for the main cause of mortality.1 In a series of 1,500 cases of human brucellosis, there were only five cases (0.3%) of endocarditis,7 8 yet another recent study reported 4% of endocarditis.9 The disease is rare in western countries where the agent is B. abortus, which causes mild disease.10

It is more common in men than women.11 Most common human brucellosis is caused by B. melitensis that is known to cause more severe, acute disease associated with more complications.10 Since 2000 western central China and Tibet had shown increased endemicity.1 In countries where brucellosis is an endemic zoonosis and the rheumatic heart disease prevalence is high, BE is of more common occurrence.

The incidence of BE in various studies is mentioned in Table 2.12

Table 2:
Incidence of Brucella endocarditis in various studies

Sl. no.

Year of study

Author

Incidence of Brucella endocarditis in patients

1

1956

Spink10

1.6% (4/244)

2

1960

Dalrymple-Champneys 8

0.3% (5/1500)

3

1960 (necropsy study)

Peery and Belter6

80% in 44 cases

4

1986

Halim et al7

8.5%

5

2011

Calik and Gokengin12

51/4204 (brucellosis cases)

6

1989

Colmenero et al38

1.1% (6/530 cases)

7

2002

Aygen et al9

0.4% (2/480 cases)

8

2016

Du and Wang49

3% (5/189)

Clinical Presentation

Brucellosis has three presentations: acute (<2 months), subacute (2–12 months), and chronic forms. The involvement is a multisystem disease that may vary from mild to fulminant course with 30 to 40% morbidity. The most common manifestations are undulant fever, arthralgia, asthenia, hepatosplenomegaly, and other constitutional symptoms. The incubation period is ∼2 to 6 weeks but may occasionally be much longer. The patients with BE suffer for 6 to 12 months. Among the cardiac complications associated with endocarditis are paravalvular leakage, ring abscess, congenital heart disease (ventricular septal defect), rheumatic heart disease, and acute valve malfunction. Extracardiac manifestations such as sepsis, septic shock, renal failure, pneumonia, disseminated pulmonary abscess, liver abscess, sacroiliitis, and encephalopathy were reported.13

Coming to the cardiac involvement, the frequently infected native valve is aortic valve (29–75%) followed by the mitral valve. Secondary infection of predamaged mitral valve is more common than the aortic valve.14 Prosthetic valves were affected in 8.3% of cases.11 15 The most frequent cardiac symptoms are dyspnea due to congestive heart failure (CHF) (75–90%). The presence of new onset murmur is the most common clinical sign.16 The occurrence of embolic manifestations was not more common than endocarditis caused by other organisms.17 18

Diagnosis

Definitive diagnosis of BE is made in accordance with Duke's criteria. High degree of suspicion is needed for diagnosis in a patient living in endemic region and is in contact with livestock and veterinary products. Multi modality approach including Brucella endocarditis blood culture, echocardiography (transthoracic/transesophageal), and serology help in diagnosing this latent disease. Other tests like immunohistology, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and analysis of surgical material also aid in diagnosis.

Blood Culture

Three sets of blood cultures should be drawn half an hour apart from different areas. Though it is the gold standard for diagnosis of Brucella, it has a low diagnostic yield due to its fastidious growth and requirement of suitable culture medium and previous usage of antibiotics. The sensitivity of blood culture is low (15–20%), but the specificity is higher.19 It depends on culture media used, stage of disease, previous antibiotic use, and technique of culture. Hence, BE is associated with higher rate of negative blood cultures. It is advisable from literature review that BE should be looked for in culture-negative endocarditis. While positivity of blood culture in Brucella infection is 15 to 70%, in BE it is above 80%.20 21 In a report by Reguera et al, the positive rate is 63.6% when culture was processed in absence of previous antibiotic therapy, whereas Esmailpour et al22 showed 22.2% positivity rate. Culture can be positive in 40 to 90% of acute and 5 to 20% of chronic cases. However, the recent use of automated culture systems has led to more early identification of Brucella species.23 Mean duration of symptoms before the diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis was also prolonged in patients with a history of brucellosis.24

Serology

These are more sensitive than blood culture but less specific. The diagnostic role of serology in the diagnosis of Brucellosis is very crucial.25 The various tests used are enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), immunofluorescence, reverse immunofluorescence, Rose Bengal test, with ELISA having highest sensitivity and specificity.21 Wright agglutination and Rose Bengal test serve as sensitive diagnostic tools. But these tests can give false negative results in early stages. Wright seroagglutination >1/160 or a Coombs anti-Brucella test > 1/320 and an indirect immunofluorescence >1/512 are considered as significant titers.26 27 The recurrence of the disease can be diagnosed by 2-mercaptoethanol Wright test. Because of its low specificity, these tests should be interpreted with caution in highly endemic areas. Molecular testing by PCR had both high sensitivity and high specificity.

Echocardiography28

Transthoracic echocardiogram plays an important role in identifying the structural damage but transesophageal echocardiogram is often required in many cases. Bulky vegetations on the valves, abscess, and ulcerations are the most common features.29 Valvular regurgitation (aortic/mitral) is acute in nature, and cardiac fistulas are also commonly known to occur, but any structural element can be affected. There is one report of rupture of aortic cusp. In prosthetic valve endocarditis, the most common complications were bulky vegetation, paravalvular leakage, aneurysm, abscess, and valve malfunction.30 31 Echocardiographic features are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3:
Echocardiographic features of Brucella endocarditis

Echocardiographic features

Native valve

 Aortic valve—Most common affected valve

 Bulky vegetations on valvular leaflets (>0.5–1.0cm)

 Valvular regurgitation

 Premature closure of mitral valve with acute severe aortic regurgitation

 Rupture of cusps

 Valve abscess

 Root abscess

 Cardiac fistulas

Prosthetic valve

 Bulky vegetations

 Paravalvular leak

 Aneurysm

 Abscess

 Valve malfunction

Electrocardiography

Electrocardiographic changes may reflect involvement of the cardiac conduction system, that is, right or left bundle blocks or atrioventricular blocks.

An algorithm for the management of BE is mentioned by Raju et al.32

Treatment

BE has an unremitting and fatal course with mortality occurring within 3.11 months usually with CHF. Antibiotic therapy and surgical intervention were the mainstays of treatment.

Antibiotic Treatment

There is some uncertainty pertaining to the appropriate course and duration of various drugs used in the treatment. Its intracellular nature paves a challenge for most of the antibiotic regimens.33 Hence, no clear evidence on choice of antibiotics, but those with good penetration of cellular walls of macrophage and with bactericidal effects should be of primary choice. The most commonly prevailing regimen is the combination of doxycycline (200 mg) and rifampicin (600–900mg) for 10 to 12 weeks with an aminoglycoside coverage for initial 2 to 4 weeks.34 Other drugs that have shown some promising evidence and lower recurrence rates are cotrimoxazole, quinolones, in combination with doxycyclin.35 However, the European society36 suggests doxycycline + cotrimoxazole + rifampin orally for more than 3 months. The WHO37 recommends combination of streptomycin and tetracycline, but it has 15 to 40% of recurrence rate.38 The earlier the initiation of antibiotic regimen, the better will be the outcome.39

Surgical Intervention

Because of its high degree of tissue destruction, early surgical intervention with valve replacement gained lot of momentum in initial days of management. Wolf et al40 reported first surgical intervention for aortic valve endocarditis in 1967. A review of 308 cases by Keshtkar-Jahromi et al showed surgical intervention improved the clinical outcome. The mortality was 6.7% in combined surgical and medical group as against 32.7% in medical treatment alone with p < 0.001.

But Cohen et al41 observed similar outcomes with conservative and surgical intervention in patients with no significant valve damage and heart failure. Hence, surgery is reserved for massive valve damage with persistent CHF despite appropriate medical therapy. The main aim of surgery is the removal of infected material, affected valves, and if needed radical excision. Duran et al42 had suggested vegetectomy in patients with single vegetation. In a systematic review, relapse of brucellosis after an appropriate treatment was recorded in five patients.43

Postoperative use of antibiotics was studied by many workers44 45 and it is advised to continue antibiotic coverage for at least 6 months to prevent the relapses that can be assessed by Wright serologic titer.46

To summarize, a combination of both medical and surgical intervention is needed for BE, which includes pre- and postoperative coverage of antibiotics in patient who are benefited from surgical therapy.47 48 The synopsis of the treatment of BE is mentioned in Table 4.

Table 4:
Combined management of Brucella endocarditis

Medical management

 Doxycycline (200 mg) and rifampicin (600–900mg) for 10–12 weeks

 With an aminoglycosides coverage for initial 2–4 weeks

 Lower recurrence rates are with cotrimoxazole, quinolones, in combination with doxycycline

 Others—streptomycin and tetracycline

Surgical management

 Indications

  Massive valve damage

  Persistent CHF despite medical management

 Removal of infected material

 Valve replacement

 Vegetectomy

Combined medical and surgical treatment

 Preoperative and postoperative appropriate antibiotic coverage with timely surgery

Abbreviation: CHF, congestive heart failure.

Treatment options for Brucella endocarditis.

Prognosis

Though the mortality of brucellosis is low, the endocarditis accounts for 80% of the mortality related to it.6 CHF is responsible for majority of deaths due to BE.

This has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere for publication.

Conflicts of Interest

None

Funding No sources of research supporter funding, equipment, and drugs.

This manuscript highlights the importance of zoonotic diseases and the need of high index of suspicion for the diagnosis of this latent infection.

References

  1. , , , , , . The new global map of human brucellosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6(02):91-99.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , et al . A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiology and clinical manifestations of human brucellosis in China. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018:5712920.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , . Pediatric brucellosis. An update review for the new millennium. Saudi Med J. 2018;39(04):336-341.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , . Molecular investigation of virulence factors of Brucella melitensis and Brucella abortus strains isolated from clinical and non-clinical samples. Microb Pathog. 2017;109:8-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , . Bacterial pathogens as biological weapons and agents of bioterrorism. Am J Med Sci. 2002;323(06):299-315.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , . Brucellosis and heart disease. II. Fatal brucellosis: a review of the literature and report of new cases. Am J Pathol. 1960;36:673-697.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , et al . Infective endocarditis in King Faisal Specialist Hospital, review of 35 consecutive adult patients. Ann Saudi Med. 1986;6:179-183.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , . Brucella Infection and Undulent Fever in Man. London: Oxford University Press; . p. 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , . Clinical manifestations, complications and treatment of brucellosis: a retrospective evaluation of 480 patients. Med Mal Infect. 2002;32:485-493.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , . The n Nature of Brucellosis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; . p. 145-190.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , . Brucella endocarditis: clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic approach. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2003;22(11):647-650.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , , . Human brucellosis in Turkey: a review of the literature between 1990 and 2009. Turk J Med Sci. 2011;41:549-555.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , . Clinical presentations and diagnosis of brucellosis. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2013;8(01):34-41.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , . Brucella endocarditis - a registry study. Kardiol Pol. 2009;67(03):274-280.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , , , . Brucella endocarditis. Br Heart J. 1987;58(03):279-283.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. E. Williams, Brucellosis, practitioner 226(1982):1507
  17. , , , et al . Stroke location, characterization, severity, and outcome in mitral vs aortic valve endocarditis. Neurology. 2003;61(10):1341-1346.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , et al . The risk of stroke and death in patients with aortic and mitral valve endocarditis. Am Heart J. 2001;142(01):75-80.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , et al . The role of antibiotic treatment alone for the management of Brucella endocarditis in adults: a case report and literature review. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;8(06):381-385.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. , . Zoonotic endocarditis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1993;7(01):135-152.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , et al . Clinical characteristics and outcome of Brucella endocarditis. Trop Doct. 2009;39(02):85-88.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , , , , . Brucella endocarditis: a report from Iran. Trop Doct. 2010;40(01):47-49.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. , , , , , , . Evaluation of the BacT/ALERT and BACTEC 9240 automated blood culture systems for growth time of Brucella species in a Turkish tertiary hospital. Med Sci Monit. 2006;12(07):BR235-BR238.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , , , , . A. Successful management of prosthetic valve Brucella endocarditis with antibiotherapy alone. Eur J Case Rep Intern Med. 2018;5(04):000808.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. , , , . Brucellosis: review on the recent trends in pathogenicity and laboratory diagnosis. J Lab Physicians. 2010;2(02):55-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. , , , , , . Laboratory-based diagnosis of brucellosis—a review of the literature. Part I: Techniques for direct detection and identification of Brucella spp. Clin Lab (Zaragoza). ;49:487-505. •••;
    [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , . Brucellosis–new aspects of an old disease. J Appl Microbiol. 2005;98(06):1270-1281.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. , , , et al . Latent infective endocarditis: epidemiology and clinical characteristics of patients with unsuspected endocarditis detected after elective valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78(05):1623-1629.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. , , , et al . Surgical treatment of Brucella endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71(04):1160-1163.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. , , , et al . Brucella endocarditis, a report of 14 cases (1991-2009) J Infect. 2010;61(01):89-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. , , . Brucella prosthetic valve endocarditis with septic and cardiogenic shock. IDCases. 2020;21:e00881.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. , , , , , , . Brucella endocarditis - a series of five case reports. Indian Heart J. 2013;65(01):72-77.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. , , , . Can brucella endocarditis be treated successfully with medical therapy alone? Trop Doct. 2009;39(02):123-124.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. , , , et al . Management of Brucella endocarditis: results of the Gulhane study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;40(02):145-150.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. , , , . [Meta-analysis of the efficacy of the combination of +rifampicin and doxycycline in the treatment of human brucellosis] Med Clin (Barc). 1994;102(19):731-738.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. , , , et al , , . Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis (new version 2009): the Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur Heart J. 2009;30(19):2369-2413.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. , . Sixth Report. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser No.740. Geneva: World Health Organisation; .
    [Google Scholar]
  38. , , , , , , . Comparative trial of doxycycline plus streptomycin versus doxycycline plus rifampin for the therapy of human brucellosis. Chemotherapy. 1989;35(02):146-152.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. , , , et al . Brucella endocarditis: presentation of two cases and literature review. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2002;43:174-177.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. , , , , , . Endocardite brucellienne. Guérison par remplacement valvulaire en période évolutive. Nouv Presse Med. 1973;2(08):493-495.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. , , , et al . Conservative treatment for Brucella endocarditis. Clin Cardiol. 1997;20(03):291-294.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. , , , , . Excision of aortic vegetation in Brucella endocarditis. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2001;9:59-61.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. , , , , , , . Brucella prosthetic valve endocarditis: a systematic review. J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2021;33(03):198-212.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. , , , et al . Brucella endocarditis: the importance of surgical timing after medical treatment (five cases) Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2005;47(04):226-229.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. , , , et al . Treatment of Brucella endocarditis: our surgical experience with 6 patients. Heart Surg Forum. 2005;8(04):E262-E265.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. , , , et al . Treatment of Brucella endocarditis: 15 years of clinical and surgical experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(05):1432-1436.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. , , , , , . Brucella aortic endocarditis corrected by prosthetic valve replacement. Am Heart J. 1983;106(03):594-596.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. , , , , , , . Brucella endocarditis: the role of combined medical and surgical treatment. Rev Infect Dis. 1990;12(05):740-744.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. , , . Clinical characteristics and outcome of Brucella endocarditis. Turk J Med Sci. 2016;46(06):1729-1733.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections