Nondental Invasive Procedures and Risk of Infective Endocarditis: Time for a Revisit: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

There have been no published prospective randomized clinical trials that have: (1) established an association between invasive dental and nondental invasive procedures and risk of infective endocarditis; or (2) defined the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis administered in the setting of invasive procedures in the prevention of infective endocarditis in high-risk patients. Moreover, previous observational studies that examined the association of nondental invasive procedures with the risk of infective endocarditis have been limited by inadequate sample size. They have typically focused on a few potential at-risk surgical and nonsurgical invasive procedures. However, recent investigations from Sweden and England that used nationwide databases and demonstrated an association between nondental invasive procedures, and the subsequent development of infective endocarditis (in particular, in high-risk patients with infective endocarditis) prompted the development of the current science advisory.

Endocarditis, invasive dental procedures, and antibiotic prophylaxis efficacy in US Medicaid patients.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before invasive dental procedures to prevent endocarditis in those at high risk, but supporting data are sparse. We therefore investigated any association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis, and any antibiotic prophylaxis effect on endocarditis incidence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cohort and case-crossover studies were performed on 1,678,190 Medicaid patients with linked medical, dental, and prescription data. RESULTS: The cohort study identified increased endocarditis incidence within 30 days of invasive dental procedures in those at high risk, particularly after extractions (OR 14.17, 95% CI 5.40-52.11, p < 0.0001) or oral surgery (OR 29.98, 95% CI 9.62-119.34, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.53, p < 0.0001). Case-crossover analysis confirmed the association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis in those at high risk, particularly following extractions (OR 3.74, 95% CI 2.65-5.27, p < 0.005) and oral surgery (OR 10.66, 95% CI 5.18-21.92, p < 0.0001). The number of invasive procedures, extractions, or surgical procedures needing antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent one endocarditis case was 244, 143 and 71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive dental procedures (particularly extractions and oral surgery) were significantly associated with endocarditis in high-risk individuals, but AP significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following these procedures, thereby supporting current guideline recommendations.

Bacteremia following different oral procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the timing, duration and incidence of bacteremia following invasive dental procedures (IDPs) or activities of daily living (ADL). Eight databases were searched for randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) evaluating bacteremia before and after IDPs or ADL in healthy individuals. The risk of bias was assessed by RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. For the meta-analysis, the primary outcomes were the timing and duration of bacteremia. The secondary outcome was the incidence of bacteremia, measuring the proportion of patients with bacteremia within 5 min after the end of the procedure compared with baseline. We included 64 nRCTs and 25 RCTs. Peak bacteremia occurred within 5 min after the procedure and then decreased over time. Dental extractions showed the highest incidence of bacteremia (62%-66%), followed by scaling and root planing (SRP) (44%-36%) and oral health procedures (OHP) (e.g., dental prophylaxis and dental probing without SRP) (27%-28%). Other ADL (flossing and chewing) (16%) and toothbrushing (8%-26%) resulted in bacteremia as well. The majority of studies had some concerns RCTs or moderate risk of bias nRCTs. Dental extractions, SRP and OHP, are associated with the highest frequency of bacteremia. Toothbrushing, flossing, and chewing also caused bacteremia in lower frequency.

Rapid Roll Out of a Pacemaker Home Monitoring Programme: A Patient Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of a pacemaker home monitoring (HM) service. METHODS: All patients receiving a new Biotronik (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) pacemaker between March 2020 and February 2021 were contacted for participation. Participants were surveyed on their experience of pacemaker HM. HM alerts and remote wound monitoring rates were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the patients contacted, 77% responded, with a mean age of 80.6±9.9 years. Of these, 95.8% agreed that the home monitoring (HM) has been beneficial. Two thirds preferred HM to face-to-face follow-up and two thirds felt safe with HM. Three themes were identified from the comments: reassurance, technology and data security. Forty-one percent (41%) of respondents would like more reassurance that their HM is working, 18% mentioned technology with mixed responses, and 4.7% cited cybersecurity or the use of their personal data as a concern. The average one-way patient journey saved was 24.3±16.7 km (15.1±10.4 miles). One in three HM alerts required action but only 3.4% were urgent. Remote wound review was successful in 59%. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients prefer HM and almost all think it has been beneficial. It saves significant travel time and provides actionable alerts. The patient experience could be improved by reassuring patients that their device is being monitored.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

Quantifying infective endocarditis risk in patients with predisposing cardiac conditions.

Aims: There are scant comparative data quantifying the risk of infective endocarditis (IE) and associated mortality in individuals with predisposing cardiac conditions. Methods and results: English hospital admissions for conditions associated with increased IE risk were followed for 5 years to quantify subsequent IE admissions. The 5-year risk of IE or dying during an IE admission was calculated for each condition and compared with the entire English population as a control. Infective endocarditis incidence in the English population was 36.2/million/year. In comparison, patients with a previous history of IE had the highest risk of recurrence or dying during an IE admission [odds ratio (OR) 266 and 215, respectively]. These risks were also high in patients with prosthetic valves (OR 70 and 62) and previous valve repair (OR 77 and 60). Patients with congenital valve anomalies (currently considered 'moderate risk') had similar levels of risk (OR 66 and 57) and risks in other 'moderate-risk' conditions were not much lower. Congenital heart conditions (CHCs) repaired with prosthetic material (currently considered 'high risk' for 6 months following surgery) had lower risk than all 'moderate-risk' conditions-even in the first 6 months. Infective endocarditis risk was also significant in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Conclusion: These data confirm the high IE risk of patients with a history of previous IE, valve replacement, or repair. However, IE risk in some 'moderate-risk' patients was similar to that of several 'high-risk' conditions and higher than repaired CHC. Guidelines for the risk stratification of conditions predisposing to IE may require re-evaluation.

Is antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis worthwhile?

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare condition which is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Almost 100 years ago, the links between endocarditis and procedures, particularly dental procedures, were postulated. Over 50 years ago the first guidelines recommending antibiotic prophylaxis (AP), with the aim of preventing IE developing after procedures, were proposed. However, there has only ever been circumstantial evidence in humans that AP prevents IE. The rarity of IE has made a randomised controlled clinical trial impractical to date. This article outlines the history of AP and reviews the evidence base for the use of AP to prevent IE.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Patients at Risk of Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: In March 2008, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended stopping antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for those at risk of infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing dental procedures in the United Kingdom, citing a lack of evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We have performed a new economic evaluation of AP on the basis of contemporary estimates of efficacy, adverse events, and resource implications. METHODS: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was used. Health service costs and benefits (measured as quality-adjusted life-years) were estimated. Rates of IE before and after the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance were available to estimate prophylactic efficacy. AP adverse event rates were derived from recent UK data, and resource implications were based on English Hospital Episode Statistics. RESULTS: AP was less costly and more effective than no AP for all patients at risk of IE. The results are sensitive to AP efficacy, but efficacy would have to be substantially lower for AP not to be cost-effective. AP was even more cost-effective in patients at high risk of IE. Only a marginal reduction in annual IE rates (1.44 cases in high-risk and 33 cases in all at-risk patients) would be required for AP to be considered cost-effective at £20 000 ($26 600) per quality-adjusted life-year. Annual cost savings of £5.5 to £8.2 million ($7.3-$10.9 million) and health gains >2600 quality-adjusted life-years could be achieved from reinstating AP in England. CONCLUSIONS: AP is cost-effective for preventing IE, particularly in those at high risk. These findings support the cost-effectiveness of guidelines recommending AP use in high-risk individuals.

Homocysteine-lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease, which includes coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease, is a leading cause of death worldwide. Homocysteine is an amino acid with biological functions in methionine metabolism. A postulated risk factor for cardiovascular disease is an elevated circulating total homocysteine level. The impact of homocysteine-lowering interventions, given to patients in the form of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 supplements, on cardiovascular events has been investigated. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2013, and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether homocysteine-lowering interventions, provided to patients with and without pre-existing cardiovascular disease are effective in preventing cardiovascular events, as well as reducing all-cause mortality, and to evaluate their safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 1 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 2017 week 22) and LILACS (1986 to 1 June 2017). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 1 June 2017). We handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We also contacted researchers in the field. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events with a follow-up period of one year or longer. We considered myocardial infarction and stroke as the primary outcomes. We excluded studies in patients with end-stage renal disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We used a random-effects model. We conducted trial sequential analyses, Bayes factor, and fragility indices where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: In this third update, we identified three new randomised controlled trials, for a total of 15 randomised controlled trials involving 71,422 participants. Nine trials (60%) had low risk of bias, length of follow-up ranged from one to 7.3 years. Compared with placebo, there were no differences in effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions on myocardial infarction (homocysteine-lowering = 7.1% versus placebo = 6.0%; RR 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.10, I2 = 0%, 12 trials; N = 46,699; Bayes factor 1.04, high-quality evidence), death from any cause (homocysteine-lowering = 11.7% versus placebo = 12.3%, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06, I2 = 0%, 11 trials, N = 44,817; Bayes factor = 1.05, high-quality evidence), or serious adverse events (homocysteine-lowering = 8.3% versus comparator = 8.5%, RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14, I2 = 0%, eight trials, N = 35,788; high-quality evidence). Compared with placebo, homocysteine-lowering interventions were associated with reduced stroke outcome (homocysteine-lowering = 4.3% versus comparator = 5.1%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99, I2 = 8%, 10 trials, N = 44,224; high-quality evidence). Compared with low doses, there were uncertain effects of high doses of homocysteine-lowering interventions on stroke (high = 10.8% versus low = 11.2%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22, I2 = 72%, two trials, N = 3929; very low-quality evidence).We found no evidence of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this third update of the Cochrane review, there were no differences in effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination comparing with placebo on myocardial infarction, death from any cause or adverse events. In terms of stroke, this review found a small difference in effect favouring to homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination comparing with placebo.There were uncertain effects of enalapril plus folic acid compared with enalapril on stroke; approximately 143 (95% CI 85 to 428) people would need to be treated for 5.4 years to prevent 1 stroke, this evidence emerged from one mega-trial.Trial sequential analyses showed that additional trials are unlikely to increase the certainty about the findings of this issue regarding homocysteine-lowering interventions versus placebo. There is a need for additional trials comparing homocysteine-lowering interventions combined with antihypertensive medication versus antihypertensive medication, and homocysteine-lowering interventions at high doses versus homocysteine-lowering interventions at low doses. Potential trials should be large and co-operative.

Incidence of infective endocarditis in England, 2000-13: a secular trend, interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis given before invasive dental procedures in patients at risk of developing infective endocarditis has historically been the focus of infective endocarditis prevention. Recent changes in antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in the USA and Europe have substantially reduced the number of patients for whom antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended. In the UK, guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended complete cessation of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of infective endocarditis in March, 2008. We aimed to investigate changes in the prescribing of antibiotic prophylaxis and the incidence of infective endocarditis since the introduction of these guidelines. METHODS: We did a retrospective secular trend study, analysed as an interrupted time series, to investigate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis on the incidence of infective endocarditis in England. We analysed data for the prescription of antibiotic prophylaxis from Jan 1, 2004, to March 31, 2013, and hospital discharge episode statistics for patients with a primary diagnosis of infective endocarditis from Jan 1, 2000, to March 31, 2013. We compared the incidence of infective endocarditis before and after the introduction of the NICE guidelines using segmented regression analysis of the interrupted time series. FINDINGS: Prescriptions of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis fell substantially after introduction of the NICE guidance (mean 10,900 prescriptions per month [Jan 1, 2004, to March 31, 2008] vs 2236 prescriptions per month [April 1, 2008, to March 31, 2013], p<0·0001). Starting in March, 2008, the number of cases of infective endocarditis increased significantly above the projected historical trend, by 0·11 cases per 10 million people per month (95% CI 0·05-0·16, p<0·0001). By March, 2013, 35 more cases per month were reported than would have been expected had the previous trend continued. This increase in the incidence of infective endocarditis was significant for both individuals at high risk of infective endocarditis and those at lower risk. INTERPRETATION: Although our data do not establish a causal association, prescriptions of antibiotic prophylaxis have fallen substantially and the incidence of infective endocarditis has increased significantly in England since introduction of the 2008 NICE guidelines. FUNDING: Heart Research UK, Simplyhealth, and US National Institutes of Health.

Postural modification to the standard Valsalva manoeuvre for emergency treatment of supraventricular tachycardias (REVERT): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Valsalva manoeuvre is an internationally recommended treatment for supraventricular tachycardia, but cardioversion is rare in practice (5-20%), necessitating the use of other treatments including adenosine, which patients often find unpleasant. We assessed whether a postural modification to the Valsalva manoeuvre could improve its effectiveness. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled, parallel-group trial at emergency departments in England. We randomly allocated adults presenting with supraventricular tachycardia (excluding atrial fibrillation and flutter) in a 1:1 ratio to undergo a modified Valsalva manoeuvre (done semi-recumbent with supine repositioning and passive leg raise immediately after the Valsalva strain), or a standard semi-recumbent Valsalva manoeuvre. A 40 mm Hg pressure, 15 s standardised strain was used in both groups. Randomisation, stratified by centre, was done centrally and independently, with allocation with serially numbered, opaque, sealed, tamper-evident envelopes. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to allocation. The primary outcome was return to sinus rhythm at 1 min after intervention, determined by the treating clinician and electrocardiogram and confirmed by an investigator masked to treatment allocation. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN67937027). FINDINGS: We enrolled 433 participants between Jan 11, 2013, and Dec 29, 2014. Excluding second attendance by five participants, 214 participants in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 37 (17%) of 214 participants assigned to standard Valsalva manoeuvre achieved sinus rhythm compared with 93 (43%) of 214 in the modified Valsalva manoeuvre group (adjusted odds ratio 3·7 (95% CI 2·3-5·8; p<0·0001). We recorded no serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In patients with supraventricular tachycardia, a modified Valsalva manoeuvre with leg elevation and supine positioning at the end of the strain should be considered as a routine first treatment, and can be taught to patients. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but their use is not standardised, due to the differences in presentation, populations affected and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible. OBJECTIVES: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE Classic and EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 30 April 2015. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating possible infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of studies. We described the included studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Four small randomised controlled trials involving 728 allocated/224 analysed participants met our inclusion criteria. These trials had a high risk of bias. Drug companies sponsored two of the trials. We were unable to pool the data due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions and the different antibiotics used.The included trials compared the following antibiotic schedules. The first trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (anti-staphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin) and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone reporting uncertain effects on all-cause mortality (8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.56, very low quality evidence). The second trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an anti-staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin. This showed uncertain effects in terms of cure rates (9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus anti-staphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin, RR 0.89 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89; very low quality evidence). The third trial compared cloxacillin plus gentamicin with a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin. In participants receiving gentamycin plus glycopeptide only 13/23 (56%) were cured versus 11/11 (100%) receiving cloxacillin plus gentamicin (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; very low quality evidence). The fourth trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone and found no conclusive differences in terms of cure (15/34 (44%) with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus 21/33 (64%) with ceftriaxone alone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10; very low quality evidence).The trials reported adverse events, need for cardiac surgical interventions, uncontrolled infection and relapse of endocarditis and found no conclusive differences between comparison groups (very low quality evidence). No trials assessed septic emboli or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited and very low quality evidence suggested that there were no conclusive differences between antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes. However, because of the very low quality evidence, this needs confirmation. The conclusion of this Cochrane review was based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for treatment of infective endocarditis.

Incidence and nature of adverse reactions to antibiotics used as endocarditis prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) administration prior to invasive dental procedures has been a leading focus of infective endocarditis prevention. However, there have been long-standing concerns about the risk of adverse drug reactions as a result of this practice. The objective of this study was to identify the incidence and nature of adverse reactions to amoxicillin and clindamycin prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis. METHODS: We obtained AP prescribing data for England from January 2004 to March 2014 from the NHS Business Services Authority, and adverse drug reaction data from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency's Yellow Card reporting scheme for prescriptions of the standard AP protocol of a single 3 g oral dose of amoxicillin or a single 600 mg oral dose of clindamycin for those allergic to penicillin. RESULTS: The reported adverse drug reaction rate for amoxicillin AP was 0 fatal reactions/million prescriptions (in fact 0 fatal reactions for nearly 3 million prescriptions) and 22.62 non-fatal reactions/million prescriptions. For clindamycin, it was 13 fatal and 149 non-fatal reactions/million prescriptions. Most clindamycin adverse drug reactions were Clostridium difficile infections. CONCLUSIONS: AP adverse drug reaction reporting rates in England were low, particularly for amoxicillin, and lower than previous estimates. This suggests that amoxicillin AP is comparatively safe for patients without a history of amoxicillin allergy. The use of clindamycin AP was, however, associated with significant rates of fatal and non-fatal adverse drug reactions associated with C. difficile infections. These were higher than expected and similar to those for other doses, durations and routes of clindamycin administration.

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.

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.