New evidence calls into question NICE's endocarditis prevention guidance.

In 2008, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommended against the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to prevent infective endocarditis (IE). They did so because of lack of AP efficacy evidence and adverse reaction concerns. Consequently, NICE concluded AP was not cost-effective and should not be recommended. In 2015, NICE reviewed its guidance and continued to recommend against AP. However, it subsequently changed its wording to 'antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not routinely recommended'. The lack of explanation of what constituted routinely (and not routinely), or how to manage non-routine patients, caused enormous confusion and NICE remained out of step with all major international guideline committees who continued to recommend AP for those at high risk.Since the 2015 guideline review, new data have confirmed an association between IDPs and subsequent IE and demonstrated AP efficacy in reducing IE risk following IDPs in high-risk patients. New evidence also shows that in high-risk patients, the IE risk following IDPs substantially exceeds any adverse reaction risk, and that AP is therefore highly cost-effective. Given the new evidence, a NICE guideline review would seem appropriate so that UK high-risk patients can receive the same protection afforded high-risk patients in the rest of the world.

Prevention of infective endocarditis in at-risk patients: how should dentists proceed in 2024?

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines are ambiguous over the need for patients at increased risk of infective endocarditis (IE) to receive antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to invasive dental procedures (IDPs), and this has caused confusion for patients and dentists alike. Moreover, the current law on consent requires clinicians to ensure that patients are made aware of any material risk they might be exposed to by any proposed dental treatment and what can be done to ameliorate this risk, so that the patient can decide for themselves how they wish to proceed. The aim of this article is to provide dentists with the latest information on the IE-risk posed by IDPs to different patient populations (the general population and those defined as being at moderate or high risk of IE), and data on the effectiveness of AP in reducing the IE risk in these populations. This provides the information dentists need to facilitate the informed consent discussions they are legally required to have with patients at increased risk of IE about the risks posed by IDPs and how this can be minimised. The article also provides practical information and advice for dentists on how to manage patients at increased IE risk who present for dental treatment.

Endocarditis prevention: time for a review of NICE guidance.

In 2023, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) updated its infective endocarditis (IE) guidelines strongly endorsing antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) for high-risk patients, elevating their recommendation to Class I. The American Heart Association (AHA) is aligned with this view and reaffirmed the need for AP to prevent IE in those at high-risk in its 2021 guidelines. In contrast, the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends against routine AP use. Despite considerable new evidence, NICE has not reviewed this recommendation since 2015. In this Personal View, we review the new evidence that has arisen since 2015. Our analysis establishes the association between IDPs and IE and shows that AP is both safe and effective in reducing the IE-risk following IDPs in those at high-risk. Data also show that AP is cost-effective and would result in significant cost savings and health benefits if re-introduced into the UK's National Health Service for high-risk patients. Given these insights, we argue it is time NICE reviewed its guidance so that high-risk patients in the UK receive the same protection against IE that is afforded to patients in the rest of the world. Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.