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.

Prevention of Viridans Group Streptococcal Infective Endocarditis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the American Heart Association published updated evidence-based guidelines on the recommended use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent viridans group streptococcal (VGS) infective endocarditis (IE) in cardiac patients undergoing invasive procedures. The 2007 guidelines significantly scaled back the underlying conditions for which antibiotic prophylaxis was recommended, leaving only 4 categories thought to confer the highest risk of adverse outcome. The purpose of this update is to examine interval evidence of the acceptance and impact of the 2007 recommendations on VGS IE and, if needed, to make revisions based on this evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: A writing group was formed consisting of experts in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis including members of the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, in addition to the American Heart Association. MEDLINE database searches were done for English language articles on compliance with the recommendations in the 2007 guidelines and the frequency of and morbidity or mortality from VGS IE after publication of the 2007 guidelines. Overall, there was good general awareness of the 2007 guidelines but variable compliance with recommendations. There was no convincing evidence that VGS IE frequency, morbidity, or mortality has increased since 2007. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a review of the available evidence, there are no recommended changes to the 2007 VGS IE prevention guidelines. We continue to recommend VGS IE prophylaxis only for categories of patients at highest risk for adverse outcome while emphasizing the critical role of good oral health and regular access to dental care for all. Randomized controlled studies to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective against VGS IE are needed to further refine recommendations.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Prosthetic Joint Patients Undergoing Invasive Dental Procedures: Time for a Rethink?

BACKGROUND: In the United States, it has been common practice to recommend that dentists provide antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to prevent late periprosthetic joint infections (LPJIs) in patients who have prosthetic arthroplasties despite lack of evidence for a causal relationship between IDP and LPJI and a lack of evidence for AP efficacy. METHODS: A recent study quantified the IDP incidence over the 15-month period prior to LPJI hospital admissions in the United Kingdom for which dental records were available. A case-crossover analysis compared IDP incidence in the 3 months before LPJI admission with the preceding 12 months. The English population was used because guidelines do not recommend AP and any relationship between IDPs and LPJI should be fully exposed. RESULTS: No significant positive association was identified between IDPs and LPJI. Indeed, the incidence of IDPs was lower in the 3 months before LPJI hospital admission than that in the preceding 12 months. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a significant positive association between IDPs and LPJI, there is no rationale to administer AP before IDPs in patients with prosthetic joints, particularly given the cost and inconvenience of AP, the risk of adverse drug reactions, and the potential for unnecessary AP use that promotes antibiotic resistance. These results should reassure orthopedic surgeons and their patients that dental care of patients who have prosthetic joints should focus on maintaining good oral hygiene rather than on recommending AP for IDPs. Moreover, it should also reassure those in other countries where AP is not recommended that such guidance is sufficient.

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.

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.

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.

The Clinical Challenge of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: JACC Focus Seminar 3/4.

During the past 6 decades, there have been numerous changes in prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), currently affecting an older population and increasing in incidence in patients with transcatheter-implanted valves. Significant microbiologic (molecular biology) and imaging diagnostic (fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography) advances have been incorporated into the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases infective endocarditis diagnostic criteria, thus increasing the diagnostic sensitivity for PVE without sacrificing specificity in validation studies. PVE is a life-threatening disease requiring management by multidisciplinary endocarditis teams in cardiac centers to improve outcomes. Novel surgical options are now available, and an increasing set of patients may avoid surgical intervention despite indication. Selected patients may complete parenteral or oral antimicrobial treatment at home. Finally, patients with prosthetic valves implanted surgically or by the transcatheter approach are candidates for antibiotic prophylaxis before invasive dental procedures.

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.

Evaluation of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy to promote antimicrobial stewardship in dental practice.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the US population self-reports a penicillin allergy history or are labeled as penicillin allergic. However, from 90% through 99% of these patients are not allergic on formal evaluation. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic receive broader-spectrum and sometimes less-effective antibiotics, thereby contributing to increased treatment failures, antibiotic resistance, and adverse drug reactions. Self-reported penicillin allergy can be eliminated or classified as low-, medium-, or high-risk after a careful review of patient history. This allows these patients to be delabeled; that is, having any reference to their penicillin allergy history or of having an allergy to penicillin eliminated from their health records. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Oral health care professionals are ideally placed to partner in both antibiotic stewardship interventions by means of recognizing pervasive mislabeling and aiding in the process of delabeling.

Recent Insights Into Native Valve Infective Endocarditis: JACC Focus Seminar 4/4.

This focused review highlights the latest issues in native valve infective endocarditis. Native valve disease moderately increases the risk of developing infective endocarditis. In 2023, new diagnostic criteria were published by the Duke-International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases group. New pathogens were designated as typical, and findings on computed tomography imaging were included as diagnostic criteria. It is now recognized that a multidisciplinary approach to care is vital, and the role of an "endocarditis team" is highlighted. Recent studies have suggested that a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics in selected patients may be reasonable, and the role of long-acting antibiotics is discussed. It is also now clear that an aggressive surgical approach can be life-saving in some patients. Finally, results of several recent studies have suggested there is an association between dental and other invasive procedures and an increased risk of developing infective endocarditis. Moreover, data indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may be effective in some scenarios.

Incidence of infective endocarditis caused by viridans group streptococci before and after publication of the 2007 American Heart Association's endocarditis prevention guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association published updated guidelines for infective endocarditis (IE) prevention in 2007 that markedly restricted the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in certain at-risk patients undergoing dental and other invasive procedures. The incidence of IE caused by viridans group streptococci (VGS) in the United States after publication of the 2007 American Heart Association guidelines has not been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a population-based review of all definite or possible cases of VGS-IE using the Rochester Epidemiology Project of Olmsted County, Minnesota. Patient demographics and microbiological data were collected for all VGS-IE cases diagnosed from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2010. We also examined the Nationwide Inpatient Sample hospital discharge database to determine the number of VGS-IE cases included between 1999 and 2009. We identified 22 cases with VGS-IE in Olmsted County over the 12-year study period. Rates of incidence (per 100 000 person-years) during time intervals of 1999-2002, 2003-2006, and 2007-2010 were 3.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-5.17), 2.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-4.10), and 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-1.64), respectively (P=0.061 from Poisson regression). The number of hospital discharges with a VGS-IE diagnosis in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database during 1999-2002, 2003-2006, and 2007-2009 ranged between 15 318 to 15 938, 16 214 to 17 433, and 14 728 to 15 479, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of data complete through 2010, there has been no perceivable increase in the incidence of VGS-IE in Olmsted County, Minnesota, since the publication of the 2007 American Heart Association endocarditis prevention guidelines.

Periodontal disease and atherosclerotic vascular disease: does the evidence support an independent association?: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

A link between oral health and cardiovascular disease has been proposed for more than a century. Recently, concern about possible links between periodontal disease (PD) and atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD) has intensified and is driving an active field of investigation into possible association and causality. The 2 disorders share several common risk factors, including cigarette smoking, age, and diabetes mellitus. Patients and providers are increasingly presented with claims that PD treatment strategies offer ASVD protection; these claims are often endorsed by professional and industrial stakeholders. The focus of this review is to assess whether available data support an independent association between ASVD and PD and whether PD treatment might modify ASVD risks or outcomes. It also presents mechanistic details of both PD and ASVD relevant to this topic. The correlation of PD with ASVD outcomes and surrogate markers is discussed, as well as the correlation of response to PD therapy with ASVD event rates. Methodological issues that complicate studies of this association are outlined, with an emphasis on the terms and metrics that would be applicable in future studies. Observational studies to date support an association between PD and ASVD independent of known confounders. They do not, however, support a causative relationship. Although periodontal interventions result in a reduction in systemic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in short-term studies, there is no evidence that they prevent ASVD or modify its outcomes.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at risk of infective endocarditis: an increasing evidence base?

Around 100 years ago, the first link between infective endocarditis (IE) and dental procedures was hypothesised; shortly after, physicians began to use antibiotics in an effort to reduce the risk of developing IE. Whether invasive dental procedures are linked to the development of IE, and antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is effective, have since remained topics of controversy. This controversy, in large part, has been due to the lack of prospective randomised clinical trial data. From this suboptimal position, guideline committees representing different societies and countries have struggled to reach an optimal position on whether AP use is needed for invasive dental procedures (or other procedures) and in whom. We present the findings from an investigation involving a large US patient database, published earlier this year, by Thornhill and colleagues. The work featured the use of both a cohort and case-crossover design and demonstrated there was a significant temporal association between invasive dental procedures and development of IE in high-IE-risk patients. Furthermore, the study showed that AP use was associated with a reduced risk of IE. Additional data, also published this year, from a separate study using nationwide hospital admissions data from England by Thornhill's group, showed that certain dental and non-dental procedures were significantly associated with the subsequent development of IE. Two other investigations have reported similar concerns for non-dental invasive procedures and risk of IE. Collectively, the results of this work support a re-evaluation of the current position taken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other organisations that are responsible for publishing practice guidelines.

Quantifying the risk of prosthetic joint infections after invasive dental procedures and the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Dentists face the expectations of orthopedic surgeons and patients with prosthetic joints to provide antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to reduce the risk of late periprosthetic joint infections (LPJIs), despite the lack of evidence associating IDPs with LPJIs, lack of evidence of AP efficacy, risk of AP-related adverse reactions, and potential for promoting antibiotic resistance. The authors aimed to identify any association between IDPs and LPJIs and whether AP reduces LPJI incidence after IDPs. METHOD: The authors performed a case-crossover analysis comparing IDP incidence in the 3 months immediately before LPJI hospital admission (case period) with the preceding 12-month control period for all LPJI hospital admissions with commercial or Medicare supplemental or Medicaid health care coverage and linked dental and prescription benefits data. RESULTS: Overall, 2,344 LPJI hospital admissions with dental and prescription records (n = 1,160 commercial or Medicare supplemental and n = 1,184 Medicaid) were identified. Patients underwent 4,614 dental procedures in the 15 months before LPJI admission, including 1,821 IDPs (of which 18.3% had AP). Our analysis identified no significant positive association between IDPs and subsequent development of LPJIs and no significant effect of AP in reducing LPJIs. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified no significant association between IDPs and LPJIs and no effect of AP cover of IDPs in reducing the risk of LPJIs. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In the absence of benefit, the continued use of AP poses an unnecessary risk to patients from adverse drug reactions and to society from the potential of AP to promote development of antibiotic resistance. Dental AP use to prevent LPJIs should, therefore, cease.

Factors that affect dentists' use of antibiotic prophylaxis: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about factors that influence dentists' decision making concerning antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prescribing. The objective of this study was to determine factors that influence dentists' AP prescribing habits in patients at risk of developing infective endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 3,584 dentist members of The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. In addition to descriptive statistics, ordinal regression models were used to determine the factors most likely to impact dentists' decisions to prescribe AP. RESULTS: Overall, 2,169 (61%) dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Resesarch Network responded. Responders' decisions to prescribe antibiotics were influenced primarily by official guidelines, scientific literature, and physician or medical specialist opinion. Regarding potential risks, the greatest level of concern was for the development of infective endocarditis or prosthetic joint infections. Although litigation was deemed problematic, more than 90% of responders indicated a strong concern for the best course of action for the patient's health. Dentists also indicated a high level of concern about the potential for generating antibiotic-resistant bacteria with AP use and increased risk of adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' AP decision making seems most influenced by official guidelines, scientific literature, and advice from a physician or medical specialist. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that one of the most effective means for promoting concordance of dentists clinical practice with the scientific basis for AP is to emphasize the importance and clarity of American Heart Association and American Dental Association recommendations and antimicrobial stewardship regarding prevention of infective endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections.