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.

Assessment of the current knowledge about infective endocarditis prevention among dental hygienists in Italy: A national survey.

OBJECTIVES: To date, there is a lack of data regarding the acceptance of the guidelines for infective endocarditis (IE) prevention among dentists in Italy, and similarly, there are no data on the understanding and compliance of those among dental hygienists (DH). Thus, we tried to assess the ability of DH to recognize and manage categories of patients at high risk of EI, to identify which dental procedures are at increased risk and to assess the level of knowledge of doses and how antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered in specific cases. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was prepared and made accessible online by sharing a Google Forms® link; general personal data and educational background information were collected to obtain a profile of the participants. RESULTS: A total of 362 DH answered to our web-based survey, showing a prevalent female percentage (86.7%) and the most represented age group of 30-39 years old (43.1%). Regarding the gender differences, there were not overall statistically significant differences; similarly, we did not find any differences regarding the overall number of wrong questions if considering the different ages of the participant and the year of graduation. Graduates in Northern Italy have mistaken fewer questions than graduates in other geographical areas. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest survey about the knowledge of IE for DH ever performed. Because the overprescription of antibiotics contributes to the development of drug resistance, antibiotic stewardship should be at the forefront of patient care. Our data reflect the need for placing a greater emphasis on IE prophylaxis education in training and during continuing professional development events for DH.

Appropriate antibiotic use in dentistry: a review of the literature and clinical recommendations.

This article reviews the latest evidence on the use of antibiotics in dentistry, beginning with the risks of antibiotic use, which include Clostridioides difficile infection and antimicrobial resistance. The article then reviews the clinical practice guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with prosthetic joints or at high risk for infective endocarditis. In the absence of established guidelines, the discussion also examines the published evidence on best practices for antibiotic prophylaxis with regard to other medical conditions (eg, kidney disease, cancer, or immunosuppression), dental extractions, minor oral surgical procedures, and implant placement, offering sample prescriptions for these situations. In addition, the current clinical practice guideline for antibiotic use in patients with endodontic infections is reviewed. Due to the alarming rates of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections and increasing antimicrobial resistance, it is imperative that dentists use evidence-based guidelines and recommendations when prescribing antibiotics to prevent and treat oral infections.

Infective Endocarditis Antibiotic Prophylaxis: Review of the Evidence and Guidelines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The question of antibiotic prophylaxis and its role in prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) remains controversial, with differing recommendations from international societies. The aim of this review was to compare and contrast current recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis for IE by the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and highlight the evidence supporting these recommendations. RECENT FINDINGS: International guidelines for administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of IE are largely unchanged since 2009. Studies on the impact of the more restrictive antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations are conflicting, with several studies suggesting lack of adherence to current guidance from the ESC (2015), NICE (2016), and AHA (2021). The question of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with IE remains controversial, with differing recommendations from international societies. Despite the change in guidelines more than 15 years ago, lack of adherence to current guidelines persists. Due to the lack of high-quality evidence and the conflicting results from observational studies along with the lack of randomized clinical trials, the question of whether to recommend antibiotic prophylaxis or not in certain patient populations remains unanswered and remains largely based on expert consensus opinion.

Recent infective endocarditis research findings suggest dentists prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for patients having a bicuspid aortic valve or mitral valve prolapse

Background: The scientific validity of the European Society of Cardiology’s (ESC) infective endocarditis (IE) guidelines limiting provision of prophylactic antibiotics (AP) only to patients having cardiac anomalies (e.g., prosthetic valves) believed to place them at “high risk” of adverse events when undergoing high risk dental procedures (HRDP) is unclear. Material and Methods: A systematic review of studies conducted between 2017 and 2022 and catalogued in the PubMed database was undertaken to ascertain if this edict was associated with changes in IE incidence, development of infection in unprotected cardiac anomalies, developing infection and resultant adverse clinical outcomes. Results: Retrieved were 19 published manuscripts, however of these, 16 were excluded because they did not bare upon the issues of concern. Among the three studies eligible for review were those in the Netherlands, Spain, and England. The results of the Dutch study denoted a significant increase in the incidence of IE cases over the projected historical trend (rate ratio: 1327, 95% CI 1.205-1.462; p<0.001) after the introduction of the ESC guidelines. The findings from the Spanish study evidenced the uniquely high in-hospital IE associated fatality rates suffered by patients having bicuspid aortic valves (BAV); 5.6% or mitral valve prolapse (MVP); 10%. The British study provided evidence that the incidence of fatal IE infection was significantly greater among an “intermediate risk” cohort of patients, (a group likely including those with BAC and MVP for which the ESC guidelines don’t recommend AP), than among “high risk” patients (P = 0.002). Conclusions: Patients having either a BAV or MVP are at significant risk of developing IE and suffering serious sequelae including death. The ESC guidelines must reclassify these specific cardiac anomalies into the “high risk” category so that AP are recognized as being needed prior to provision of HRDP. (AU)

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.

Prophylactic antibiotic use for infective endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a devastating disease with a 50% 1-year mortality rate. In recent years, medical authorities across the globe advised stricter criteria for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with high risk of IE undergoing dental procedures. Whether such recommendations may increase the risk of IE in at-risk patients must be investigated. DESIGN: Prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through 23 May 2022, together with an updated search on 5 August 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All primary studies reporting IE within 3 months of dental procedures in adults >18 years of age were included, while conference abstracts, reviews, case reports and case series involving fewer than 10 cases were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All studies were assessed by two reviewers independently, and any discrepancies were further resolved through a third researcher. RESULTS: Of the 3771 articles screened, 38 observational studies fit the inclusion criteria and were included in the study for subsequent analysis. Overall, 11% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.16, I2=100%) of IE are associated with recent dental procedures. Streptococcus viridans accounted for 69% (95% CI 0.46 to 0.85) of IE in patients who had undergone recent dental procedures, compared with only 21% (95% CI 0.17 to 0.26) in controls (p=0.003). None of the high-risk patients developed IE across all studies where 100% of the patients were treated with prophylactic antibiotics, and IE patients are 12% more likely to have undergone recent dental manipulation compared with matched controls (95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, p=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a lack of randomised control trials due to logistic difficulties in the literature on this topic, antibiotic prophylaxis are likely of benefit in reducing the incidence of IE in high-risk patients after dental procedures. Further well-designed high-quality case-control studies are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022326664.

Estimating the cost of inappropriate antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental procedures.

Inappropriate dental antibiotic prescriptions to prevent infective endocarditis in the United States results in ∼$31 million in excess costs to the healthcare system and patients. This includes out-of-pocket costs ($20.5 million), drug costs ($2.69 million) and adverse event costs (eg, Clostridioides difficile and hypersensitivity) of $5.82 million (amoxicillin), $1.99 million (clindamycin), and $380,849 (cephalexin).

Patients with Artificial Heart Valves.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, a total of 38 547 heart valve procedures were performed in 2022. With a growing number of patients undergoing the surgical and interventional implantation of heart valves, the incidence of prosthetic endocarditis is also rising. METHODS: We summarize the current state of the prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of prosthetic endocarditis in a selective review of the literature. RESULTS: Prosthetic endocarditis accounts for 10-30% of all cases of endocarditis. As its echocardiographic and microbiologic findings are often less specific than those of native endocarditis, its diagnosis now increasingly relies on alternative imaging modalities such as F-18-FDG PET-CT. Anti-infective and surgical treatment are made more difficult by biofilm formation on the prosthetic valve and the frequent formation of perivalvular abscesses. CONCLUSION: Increased awareness of this clinical entity in the outpatient setting will promote the earlier initiation of appropriate diagnostic studies. Proper diagnostic evaluation is an essential prerequisite for the early detection and timely treatment of prosthetic endocarditis, with the goal of preventing progressive destruction and thus improving the outcome. Preventive and educative measures should be intensified, and certified, multidisciplinary endocarditis teams should be established. Antibiotic prophylaxis is now given much more restrictively than in earlier years; the risk of infection must be weighed against the potential development of both individual and collective resistance to antibiotic drugs.

Recent infective endocarditis research findings suggest dentists prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for patients having a bicuspid aortic valve or mitral valve prolapse.

BACKGROUND: The scientific validity of the European Society of Cardiology's (ESC) infective endocarditis (IE) guidelines limiting provision of prophylactic antibiotics (AP) only to patients having cardiac anomalies (e.g., prosthetic valves) believed to place them at "high risk" of adverse events when undergoing high risk dental procedures (HRDP) is unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of studies conducted between 2017 and 2022 and catalogued in the PubMed database was undertaken to ascertain if this edict was associated with changes in IE incidence, development of infection in unprotected cardiac anomalies, developing infection and resultant adverse clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Retrieved were 19 published manuscripts, however of these, 16 were excluded because they did not bare upon the issues of concern. Among the three studies eligible for review were those in the Netherlands, Spain, and England. The results of the Dutch study denoted a significant increase in the incidence of IE cases over the projected historical trend (rate ratio: 1327, 95% CI 1.205-1.462; p<0.001) after the introduction of the ESC guidelines. The findings from the Spanish study evidenced the uniquely high in-hospital IE associated fatality rates suffered by patients having bicuspid aortic valves (BAV); 5.6% or mitral valve prolapse (MVP); 10%. The British study provided evidence that the incidence of fatal IE infection was significantly greater among an "intermediate risk" cohort of patients, (a group likely including those with BAC and MVP for which the ESC guidelines don't recommend AP), than among "high risk" patients (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients having either a BAV or MVP are at significant risk of developing IE and suffering serious sequelae including death. The ESC guidelines must reclassify these specific cardiac anomalies into the "high risk" category so that AP are recognized as being needed prior to provision of HRDP.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Dentists' compliance with infective endocarditis prophylaxis guidelines for patients with high-risk cardiac conditions: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine dentists' awareness and/or adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) guidelines for preventing infective endocarditis (IE) in patients with high-risk heart conditions. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature review was performed on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Proquest, Embase, Dentistry, and Oral Sciences Source databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Nationwide studies based on questionnaires, surveys, and interviews completed by dentists and published since 2007 were included. RESULTS: From 2907 articles screened, 28 studies were selected (across 20 countries). The quality of included studies was poor due to a lack of standard evaluation tools, low response rates, and lack of questionnaire validity and/or reliability. Approximately 75% of surveyed dentists reported being knowledgeable about AP guidelines, but only ∼25% complied. Reported compliance with American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines was 4 times higher than with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations. Some of the highest adherence rates were reported for other national AP guidelines. Significant geographic differences were observed in the estimated adherence to AHA guidelines and the percentage of dentists who reported seeking advice from physicians and/or cardiologists. CONCLUSION: Rates of compliance and/or adherence were substantially different from rates of knowledge and/or awareness, including relevant geographic dissimilarities. Compliance/adherence was higher for AHA than NICE.

Antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures to prevent infective endocarditis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe bacterial infection. As a measure of prevention, the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to dental procedures was recommended in the past. However, between 2007 and 2009, guidelines for IE prophylaxis changed all around the word, limiting or supporting the complete cessation of AP. It remains unclear whether AP is effective or not against IE. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review whether the administration of AP in adults before any dental procedure, compared to the non-administration of such drugs, has an effect on the risk of developing IE. We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OVID, and EMBASE. Two different authors filtered articles independently and data extraction was performed based on a pre-defined protocol. RESULTS: The only cohort study meeting our criteria included patients at high-risk of IE. Analysis of the extracted data showed a non-significant decrease in the risk of IE when high-risk patients take AP prior to invasive dental procedures (RR 0.39, p-value 0.11). We did not find other studies including patients at low or moderate risk of IE. Qualitative evaluation of the excluded articles reveals diversity of results and suggests that most of the state-of-the-art articles are underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support or discourage the use of AP prior to dental procedures as a prevention for IE is very low. New high-quality studies are needed, even though such studies would require big settings and might not be immediately feasible.