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.

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.

Adapted from: 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.

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.

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.

A summary of the update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this statement is to update the recommendations by the American Heart Association (AHA) for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections and their management, which were last published in 2003. METHODS AND RESULTS: The AHA commissioned this scientific statement to educate clinicians about CIED infections, provide explicit recommendations for the care of patients with suspected or established CIED infections and highlight areas of needed research. The recommendations in this statement reflect analyses of relevant literature, to include recent advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors, microbiology, management and prevention of CIED infections. CONCLUSION: There are no scientific data to support the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for dental or other invasive procedures. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The concerns about life-threatening drug reactions, the development of resistant strains of bacterial pathogens, medicolegal issues and cost to the health care system are, thus, avoided.