External Validation of the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Criteria for Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The 2023 Duke-International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) criteria for infective endocarditis (IE) were introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes. External validation studies are required. METHODS: We studied consecutive patients with suspected IE referred to the IE team of Amsterdam University Medical Center (from October 2016 to March 2021). An international expert panel independently reviewed case summaries and assigned a final diagnosis of "IE" or "not IE," which served as the reference standard, to which the "definite" Duke-ISCVID classifications were compared. We also evaluated accuracy when excluding cardiac surgical and pathologic data ("clinical" criteria). Finally, we compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID with the 2000 modified Duke criteria and the 2015 and 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 595 consecutive patients with suspected IE were included: 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE; 111 (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, and 48 (8%) had a cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than either the modified Duke or 2015 ESC criteria (84.2% vs 74.9% and 80%, respectively; P < .001) without significant loss of specificity. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were similarly sensitive but more specific than the 2023 ESC criteria (94% vs 82%; P < .001). The same pattern was seen for the clinical criteria (excluding surgical/pathologic results). New modifications in the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria related to "major microbiological" and "imaging" criteria had the most impact. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients with suspected IE.

The 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Criteria for Infective Endocarditis: Updating the Modified Duke Criteria.

The microbiology, epidemiology, diagnostics, and treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) have changed significantly since the Duke Criteria were published in 1994 and modified in 2000. The International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) convened a multidisciplinary Working Group to update the diagnostic criteria for IE. The resulting 2023 Duke-ISCVID IE Criteria propose significant changes, including new microbiology diagnostics (enzyme immunoassay for Bartonella species, polymerase chain reaction, amplicon/metagenomic sequencing, in situ hybridization), imaging (positron emission computed tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose, cardiac computed tomography), and inclusion of intraoperative inspection as a new Major Clinical Criterion. The list of "typical" microorganisms causing IE was expanded and includes pathogens to be considered as typical only in the presence of intracardiac prostheses. The requirements for timing and separate venipunctures for blood cultures were removed. Last, additional predisposing conditions (transcatheter valve implants, endovascular cardiac implantable electronic devices, prior IE) were clarified. These diagnostic criteria should be updated periodically by making the Duke-ISCVID Criteria available online as a "Living Document."

Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this statement is to update the recommendations by the American Heart Association (AHA) for the prevention of infective endocarditis, which were last published in 1997. METHODS: and RESULTS: A writing group appointed by the AHA for their expertise in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The writing group reviewed input from national and international experts on IE. The recommendations in this document reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related bacteremia and IE; in vitro susceptibility data of the most common microorganisms, which cause IE; results of prophylactic studies in animal models of experimental endocarditis; and retrospective and prospective studies of prevention of IE. MEDLINE database searches from 1950 through 2006 were done for English language articles using the following search terms: endocarditis, infective endocarditis, prophylaxis, prevention, antibiotic, antimicrobial, pathogens, organisms, dental, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, streptococcus, enterococcus, staphylococcus, respiratory, dental surgery, pathogenesis, vaccine, immunization and bacteremia. The reference lists of the identified articles were also searched. The writing group also searched the AHA online library. The American College of Cardiology/AHA classification of recommendations and levels of evidence for practice guidelines were used. The article subsequently was reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The major changes in the updated recommendations include the following. (1) The committee concluded that only an extremely small number of cases of IE might be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures even if such prophylactic therapy were 100 percent effective. (2) IE prophylaxis for dental procedures should be recommended only for patients with underlying cardiac conditions associated with the highest risk of adverse outcome from IE. (3) For patients with these underlying cardiac conditions, prophylaxis is recommended for all dental procedures that involve manipulation of gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa. (4) Prophylaxis is not recommended based solely on an increased lifetime risk of acquisition of IE. (5) Administration of antibiotics solely to prevent endocarditis is not recommended for patients who undergo a genitourinary or gastrointestinal tract procedure. These changes are intended to define more clearly when IE prophylaxis is or is not recommended and to provide more uniform and consistent global recommendations.

Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this statement is to update the recommendations by the American Heart Association (AHA) for the prevention of infective endocarditis, which were last published in 1997. METHODS AND RESULTS: A writing group appointed by the AHA for their expertise in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The writing group reviewed input from national and international experts on IE. The recommendations in this document reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related bacteremia and IE; in vitro susceptibility data of the most common microorganisms, which cause IE; results of prophylactic studies in animal models of experimental endocarditis; and retrospective and prospective studies of prevention of IE. MEDLINE database searches from 1950 through 2006 were done for English language articles using the following search terms: endocarditis, infective endocarditis, prophylaxis, prevention, antibiotic, antimicrobial, pathogens, organisms, dental, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, streptococcus, enterococcus, staphylococcus, respiratory, dental surgery, pathogenesis, vaccine, immunization and bacteremia. The reference lists of the identified articles were also searched. The writing group also searched the AHA online library. The American College of Cardiology/AHA classification of recommendations and levels of evidence for practice guidelines were used. The article subsequently was reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The major changes in the updated recommendations include the following. (1) The committee concluded that only an extremely small number of cases of IE might be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures even if such prophylactic therapy were 100 percent effective. (2) IE prophylaxis for dental procedures should be recommended only for patients with underlying cardiac conditions associated with the highest risk of adverse outcome from IE. (3) For patients with these underlying cardiac conditions, prophylaxis is recommended for all dental procedures that involve manipulation of gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa. (4) Prophylaxis is not recommended based solely on an increased lifetime risk of acquisition of IE. (5) Administration of antibiotics solely to prevent endocarditis is not recommended for patients who undergo a genitourinary or gastrointestinal tract procedure. These changes are intended to define more clearly when IE prophylaxis is or is not recommended and to provide more uniform and consistent global recommendations.

The cost effectiveness of antiretroviral treatment strategies in resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: Optimal resource allocation for antiretroviral treatment (ART) in developing countries requires assessment of different strategies for drug treatment and laboratory monitoring. OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and outcomes for 10 000 simulated HIV-infected patients followed every 6 months for 10 years in a limited-resource setting. METHOD: Five nested strategies, with and without the availability of a second-line treatment regimen, were simulated: (a) no ART (NO ART); (b) with ART but without any laboratory markers of HIV other than positive serology (ART ONLY); (c) ART plus total lymphocyte count (TLC); (d) ART plus CD4 cell counts (CD4); and (e) ART plus CD4 cell count plus viral load measurement (VL). Baseline prices of CD4 cell count and viral load measurements were $5.00 and $25.00 per test, respectively. RESULTS: With no second-line treatment available, treating 10 000 patients with ART ONLY compared with NO ART would cost $14.49 million [95% confidence interval (CI), 14.45-14.52] and would generate an additional 23 060 quality-adjusted life years (QALYS) (95% CI, 22 770-23 360) for a median incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $628/QALY. Median ICER values per QALY for CD4 and VL strategies are $238 and $16 139, respectively, when second-line treatment is unavailable. With second-line ART available, the corresponding median ICER values are $8636, and $14 670. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of second-line ART, the CD4 strategy is a more cost-effective laboratory testing strategy for managing HIV infection than either TLC or VL. Availability of second-line ART plus CD4 cell count and/or viral load measurement would save additional lives, but at high incremental cost.

Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this statement is to update the recommendations by the American Heart Association (AHA) for the prevention of infective endocarditis that were last published in 1997. METHODS AND RESULTS: A writing group was appointed by the AHA for their expertise in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis, with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The writing group reviewed input from national and international experts on infective endocarditis. The recommendations in this document reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related bacteremia and infective endocarditis, in vitro susceptibility data of the most common microorganisms that cause infective endocarditis, results of prophylactic studies in animal models of experimental endocarditis, and retrospective and prospective studies of prevention of infective endocarditis. MEDLINE database searches from 1950 to 2006 were done for English-language papers using the following search terms: endocarditis, infective endocarditis, prophylaxis, prevention, antibiotic, antimicrobial, pathogens, organisms, dental, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, streptococcus, enterococcus, staphylococcus, respiratory, dental surgery, pathogenesis, vaccine, immunization, and bacteremia. The reference lists of the identified papers were also searched. We also searched the AHA online library. The American College of Cardiology/AHA classification of recommendations and levels of evidence for practice guidelines were used. The paper was subsequently reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The major changes in the updated recommendations include the following: (1) The Committee concluded that only an extremely small number of cases of infective endocarditis might be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures even if such prophylactic therapy were 100% effective. (2) Infective endocarditis prophylaxis for dental procedures is reasonable only for patients with underlying cardiac conditions associated with the highest risk of adverse outcome from infective endocarditis. (3) For patients with these underlying cardiac conditions, prophylaxis is reasonable for all dental procedures that involve manipulation of gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa. (4) Prophylaxis is not recommended based solely on an increased lifetime risk of acquisition of infective endocarditis. (5) Administration of antibiotics solely to prevent endocarditis is not recommended for patients who undergo a genitourinary or gastrointestinal tract procedure. These changes are intended to define more clearly when infective endocarditis prophylaxis is or is not recommended and to provide more uniform and consistent global recommendations.

Clinical presentation of infective endocarditis.

Despite the decline in rheumatic heart disease worldwide and the use of antibiotic prophylaxis, there is no evidence that the incidence of infective endocarditis is decreasing. In fact, some data suggest it may be increasing. The classical fever of unknown origin presentation represents a minority of infective endocarditis cases today; thus, clinicians need to be vigilant about keeping infective endocarditis in mind with some of these more unusual presentations. This article focuses on the various presentations of infective endocarditis, which are organized into three groups of presenting symptoms and signs: nonspecific, cardiac, and embolic.

Diagnostic methods current best practices and guidelines for histologic evaluation in infective endocarditis.

Infective endocarditis (IE) often presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges and continues to cause high morbidity and mortality. Confirmation of the diagnosis of IE is important for the purposes of epidemiologic and clinical studies and is crucial for patient management. Despite recent advances in diagnostic techniques, about 10% of IE cases remain culture-negative. Because pathological examination of cardiac valves to demonstrate vegetations and valvular inflammation remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of IE, the role of the pathologist is often decisive, especially when bacteriologists fail to isolate a microorganism or when a microorganism that has been isolated may be a contaminant. Furthermore, the pathologist may play an important role in identification of previously unknown infectious agents.

Molecular methods for diagnosis of infective endocarditis.

The culture of viable microorganisms from the blood or from cardiac tissue is currently the most important test for diagnosis of IE. This is followed by phenotypic identification methods used for taxonomic positioning of isolates. However, in those cases where the invading microorganism is difficult or impossible to culture (including instances of prior antimicrobial treatment), molecular methods provide the best means for detection. Molecular identification methods, either nucleic acid target or signal amplification alone or in combination with sequence analysis can offer a more specific and in some cases a more rapid alternative to the phenotypic methods. We propose revised Duke criteria of IE, including positive identification of an organism by molecular biology methods.