American heart association antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines 2022 pdf

Abstract

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.

Introduction

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe bacterial infection of the heart valves that often occurs on congenitally malformed or degenerated cardiac valves with or without dysfunction [1]. Due to the high mortality rate of up to 30%, the disease has become a major threat of modern medicine [2, 3]. To prevent IE, the American Heart Association (AHA) suggested the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive medical or dental procedures since 1955 [4]. The rationale behind the use of AP prior to dental procedures is that circulating doses of antibiotics would prevent the development of transient bacteremia due to oral streptococci and, therefore, such bacteria would not attach onto the endocardium and cause IE [5, 6]. In a study from 2014 [7], 277 prescriptions of AP were needed to prevent one case of IE. However, the proportion of IE cases arising from dental procedures is arguable, and while some modeling studies consider AP to be cost-effective [8, 9], other studies report that the potential benefits of AP are less than the adverse effects [10]. State-of-the-art analyses worldwide report conflicting results in favor or against the use of AP before dental procedures [11,12,13]. Nevertheless, these practices were adopted in global agreement and continued for years. Recent concerns about drug adverse reactions and antibiotic resistance led to important modifications of the guidelines. In 2007, the AHA restricted AP to patients at high risk of IE who undergo invasive dental procedures [14]. In 2009, a very similar guideline was published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) [15], whereby in 2008, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended the complete cessation of AP prior to dental procedures [16]. Although this profound change in clinical practice has been implemented in the 2015 ESC guidelines [17], concerns have been raised regarding the poor quality of the available evidence, which mostly relies on underpowered and methodologically flawed studies [18]. Thus, an extensive systematic review is needed to summarize all the evidence on this question and to assess whether the current restrictions in the use of AP are justified.

Methods

We used the PRISMA guidelines (//www.prisma-statement.org/) to identify, select, appraise, and synthesize studies for this systematic review. The study protocol was registered at the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020175398). Eligibility criteria, outcomes and statistical methods were pre-defined.

PICOT—eligibility criteria

Our study population included individuals older than 18 years (adults) that underwent any kind of dental procedure. Animal studies and studies involving children were excluded from our research. As intervention, we considered the administration (e.g., oral or intravenous) of AP (e.g., amoxicillin, vancomycin or other antimicrobial treatments) prior to a dental procedure. The control group included patients that received no drugs or a placebo. The main outcome was definite IE as defined by the Duke criteria [17].

Information sources and search strategy

We searched the three main bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OVID, and EMBASE. The search strategy included headings, title/abstract keywords and mesh terms related to dental procedures, bacterial endocarditis and AP (see detailed search strategies in Supplementary File 1).

For this review, we considered only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (if available in the field of research) and prospective cohort studies written in English. Nevertheless, we also looked for additional reports by hand-searching the bibliographies of systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the field of our research topic. We included only studies published after 2000, since there has been an important increase in the diagnostic specificity after 2000 with the use of the revised Duke criteria [17] reducing the number of false IE cases. Moreover, the diagnostic tools (echocardiography, Cardiac CT, PET/CT, microbiology techniques) for IE diagnosis and also the dental practices have improved over years [19, 20]. Furthermore, median population age has increased [21] and criteria/standards required to report clinical trials and meta-analyses have changed [22,23,24].

Selection process, data extraction and data items

One of the authors searched the databases to find available studies and excluded those publications which, based on their title or abstract, did not meet our inclusion criteria. This person, in parallel with another author, screened the full text of the remaining publications. Both researchers worked independently, selecting only studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from each specific study by the two researchers working separately. Any disagreement was solved with the help of a third author.

We extracted information about the year of publication, study design, number of participants, inclusion and exclusion criteria for patients, and antimicrobial agents used for dental prophylaxis (if applicable). Finally, we extracted the number of IE cases in intervention and control groups in relation to the patients assigned to each of the groups (Table 1).

Table 1 Data extraction for included study

Full size table

We assessed the risk of bias for the included publication by the risk of bias tool for observational studies from Cochrane (Table 2).

Table 2 Risk of bias summary of included study

Full size table

Definitions

We defined patients at high risk of IE [20, 25].

• if they had undergone a prior prosthetic valve replacement/implantation (including transcatheter aortic valve) or a surgical valve repair or intervention (e.g., Mitraclip).

• if they had a previous episode of IE,

• if they had suffered from any type of cyanotic congenital heart disease (CHD) and/or underwent repair with prosthetic material in the 6 months before or lifelong in case of a residual shunt or valvular regurgitation.

We rated patients with a previous history of rheumatic fever, patients with unrepaired congenital anomalies of the heart valves and patients with bicuspid aortic valves, mitral valve prolapse and calcific aortic stenosis at moderate risk for IE [20]. Other heart conditions were rated at low or unknown risk.

Data analysis

Since we found only one relevant publication, we provide a data summary using qualitative assessment.

Assessment of excluded publications

Due to the very low number of studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria, and therefore the current lack of evidence, we considered the excluded publications as a descriptive source of information for the discussion. We provide a summary of these studies in Table 3.

Table 3 Qualitative evidence of excluded studies

Full size table

Results

The database search resulted in 63 studies from CENTRAL, 85 studies from MEDLINE and 188 studies from EMBASE (Fig. 1A). After exclusion of duplicates, 264 publications were further assessed. Title and abstract screening resulted in 214 relevant studies, of which 191 were descriptive, provided only qualitative results, or were not considered otherwise eligible (e.g., main outcome was bacteremia, control group was not placebo, etc.). Thus, we found 23 publications that could potentially be included in our research. After assessing each of them individually, only one study met our inclusion criteria.

Fig. 1

A Literature search and filtering process. Numbers correspond to studies under consideration at each step. Green shows the final number of publications that met our inclusion criteria. Blue shows the number of publications for which we clearly describe the reason of inclusion/exclusion. B Contingency table for the included publication. C Plot of the effects of AP in the risk ratio of developing IE based on one publication

Full size image

The only publication fulfilling the inclusion criteria is a prospective cohort study (Table 1) [26]. The observational study has a high risk of bias, as shown in Table 2. Tubiana et al. includes adults with prosthetic heart valves who underwent invasive and non-invasive dental procedures. For the present analysis, we considered only the invasive dental procedures. Data extraction and analysis (Fig. 1B, C) show a decrease in the risk of developing IE when high-risk patients received antibiotics prior to an invasive dental procedure, in accordance with the current AHA and ESC Guidelines. Nonetheless, results were not statistically significant. Based on the calculations, taking AP could slightly reduce the overall risk of developing IE in high-risk patients (p-value 0.11; RR 0.39). Overall, these results provided only a very weak evidence of an effect of AP on the risk of developing IE in high-risk patients. In this study, all patients had prosthetic cardiac valves and hence were at high risk of developing infective endocarditis. Patients at low and moderate risk of IE were not included and therefore we are unable to assess the effects of AP prior to dental procedures in these groups of patients.

Discussion

The present investigation suggests that prescribing AP before dental procedures may prevent the risk of developing IE in high-risk patients, based on a single prospective cohort study [26]. Therefore, these results are consistent with the current AHA and ESC Guidelines, advising AP in patients at elevated risk of IE who have to undergo a dental procedure [14, 20, 27, 28]. However, no prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial has been performed to confirm or refute the usefulness of AP for patients undergoing dental procedures [28]. Evidence is based on observational studies only with a potential risk of bias.

Furthermore, we found no study able to answer this question in patients at moderate or low risk of IE. Hence, it remains unclear whether these patients may benefit from AP. Some case–control studies on the topic are very old and their validity is questionable [29,30,31,32]. Literature on the effect of AP in preventing IE in moderate and low-risk patients is scarce. The 2007 AHA Guidelines limited AP to high-risk patients and interventions, especially in the oral and dental area. A time-trend study based on the US population [13] suggested that following the change of the AHA guidelines, incidence of IE did not change in the low-risk population, but it showed a modest yet statistically significant increase in the moderate-risk population, and a dramatic increase in the high-risk population. The study did not show a causal relationship between the fall in AP prescription and the increase in IE incidence. However, it provided support to the 2007 AHA Guidelines while a revision of criteria for the classification of moderate-risk patients was recommended. Similarly, another study based on the UK population [33] suggested the need of re-evaluating IE risk classification in patients with cardiac conditions, and showed that risk of IE in some moderate-risk individuals was similar to that of high-risk individuals. However, microorganism specific data are lacking in this study rendering interpretation of data difficult.

In 2015, a time-trend study in the UK [7] found a highly significant fall in AP prescription and a significant increase in the incidence of IE following the implementation of the NICE guidelines [16]. By contrast, a case-crossover design based on the Taiwanese population [12] showed that the association between the risk of IE and dental procedures was not statistically significant, even after adjusting for antibiotic use. The publication argued against the use of AP for dental procedures, claiming that dental procedures do not significantly contribute to the risk of IE. A similar case-crossover design based in Israel [34] came to the same conclusion. In 2006, a study of the French population [35] found a positive effect of AP for at-risk dental procedures in patients with predisposing cardiac conditions. The same study, nevertheless, argued that a high number of patients would need AP to avoid one single case of IE [35]. The most recent evidence in this field is from a Swedish nationwide cohort study. The study did not find an increased incidence of oral streptococcal endocarditis among high-risk individuals after promoting the cessation of AP in dentistry for the prevention of infective endocarditis among high-risk individuals [36]. However, the registry-based study is questionable since a revision of the recommendations for AP in Swedish dentistry was issued, while the study was ongoing stating that AP could be considered if recommended by the patient’s dentist. Moreover, the information on dental procedures among individual study participants was lacking [36].

Other descriptive reviews reveal that dental procedures cause a minor number of IE, suggesting that AP could only prevent a very low proportion of cases [37,38,39]. However, estimates regarding the percentage of IE caused by dental procedures are very diverse [8], with some reports claiming a risk of up to 30% in children [40]. Several case–control studies from the 1990s also reported no association between dental procedures and IE. In 1998, a case–control study performed in Philadelphia [29] proved that other factors related to cardiac valve pathologies than dental treatments might contribute to the development of IE. In this study [29], only very few participants received AP and the sample size was too small; thus, the effect of AP in the risk of developing IE was not conclusive. In 1995, a case–control study performed in France [30] stated that dental procedures were overall not related to an increased risk of IE, even though specific treatments such as scaling and root canal displayed trends towards a more elevated IE risk. In this study, however, authors did not consider those patients with IE who died, possibly leading to a biased analysis [1]. In 1992, another case–control study in the Netherlands [31] provided no evidence supporting that AP prior to an invasive dental procedure in high-risk patients is effective against IE (results were not statistically significant). Similar to the cohort study included in our review, this study only included individuals with known cardiac risks. Opposed to these results, another case–control study from 1990, which included only high-risk patients with cardiac lesions [32], reported that the use of AP provided a statistically significant protective effect against IE. In this study, patients with IE who died were also excluded [1].

According to the 2015 ESC Guidelines [20], the rationale behind the prescription of AP was developed in an attempt to prevent the attachment of bacteria to the endocardium during transient bacteremia due to invasive dental procedures. In line, multiple articles have reported an increase of bacteremia after dental procedures and a subsequent decrease when antibiotics are used [41,42,43]. Furthermore, an extensive meta-analysis published in 2017 [3] showed the results of 21 studies and revealed that AP was associated with a much lower risk ratio for bacteremia as compared to placebo, with highly significant results. Despite these facts, however, a direct causal relationship between dental procedures and IE itself has never been established [44,45,46,47].

Taken together, our systematic review indicates a lack of evidence whether AP before dental procedures indeed prevents IE, especially for patients at low and moderate risk. So far, guidelines for the prevention of IE are based on expert opinion [14, 27, 28]. Nonetheless, due to the absence of RCTs and the limited number of conclusive observational studies, the evidence in favor or against the use of AP is scarce. Furthermore, the low incidence of IE [19] makes it difficult to properly investigate the topic, since a high number of patients should be included in the analyses to ensure a sufficient statistical power. In addition, dentists' opinions on this subject differ greatly. Hence, to provide a reliable fundament for future upgrades and improvements of the guidelines [14, 27, 28], it is crucial to perform well-designed and -powered studies that are capable to overcome all limitations mentioned throughout the present systematic review.

References

1. Glenny AM, Oliver R, Roberts GJ, Hooper L, Worthington HV. Antibiotics for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in dentistry. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD003813. //doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub4.

   Article  Google Scholar 

2. Fernandez Guerrero ML, Gonzalez Lopez JJ, Goyenechea A, Fraile J, de Gorgolas M. Endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus: a reappraisal of the epidemiologic, clinical, and pathologic manifestations with analysis of factors determining outcome. Medicine (Baltimore). 2009;88:1–22. //doi.org/10.1097/MD.0b013e318194da65.

   Article  Google Scholar 

3. Cahill TJ, Prendergast BD. Infective endocarditis. Lancet. 2016;387:882–93. //doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00067-7.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4. Signs C. PREVENTION of rheumatic fever and bacterial endocarditis through control of streptococcal infections. Pediatrics. 1955;15:642–6.

   Article  Google Scholar 

5. Dajani AS. Prevention of bacterial endocarditis: highlights of the latest recommendations by the American Heart Association. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998;17:824–5. //doi.org/10.1097/00006454-199809000-00016.

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

6. Danchin N, Duval X, Leport C. Prophylaxis of infective endocarditis: French recommendations 2002. Heart. 2005;91:715–8. //doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2003.033183.

   Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7. Dayer MJ, Jones S, Prendergast B, Baddour LM, Lockhart PB, Thornhill MH. Incidence of infective endocarditis in England, 2000–13: a secular trend, interrupted time-series analysis. Lancet. 2015;385:1219–28. //doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62007-9.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8. Franklin CD. The aetiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis and changing pattern of infective endocarditis, with a note on prophylaxis. Br Dent J. 1992;172:369–73. //doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4807888.

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9. Devereux RB, Frary CJ, Kramer-Fox R, Roberts RB, Ruchlin HS. Cost-effectiveness of infective endocarditis prophylaxis for mitral valve prolapse with or without a mitral regurgitant murmur. Am J Cardiol. 1994;74:1024–9. //doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(94)90853-2.

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10. Bor DH, Himmelstein DU. Endocarditis prophylaxis for patients with mitral valve prolapse. A quantitative analysis. Am J Med. 1984;76:711–7. //doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(84)90300-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11. Bolger AF. The rationale for the new infective endocarditis guidelines. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2009;11:101–6. //doi.org/10.1007/s11886-009-0016-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12. Chen PC, Tung YC, Wu PW, Wu LS, Lin YS, Chang CJ, et al. Dental procedures and the risk of infective endocarditis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94: e1826. //doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001826.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

13. Thornhill MH, Gibson TB, Cutler E, Dayer MJ, Chu VH, Lockhart PB, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis and incidence of endocarditis before and after the 2007 AHA recommendations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2443–54. //doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14. Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, Lockhart PB, Baddour LM, Levison M, et al. 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. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(6):739–45, 47–60. //doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0262

15. Habib G, Hoen B, Tornos P, Thuny F, Prendergast B, Vilacosta I, et al. Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis (new version 2009): the Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the International Society of Chemotherapy (ISC) for Infection and Cancer. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(19):2369–413. //doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp285

16. (NICE) NIfHaE. Prophylaxis against infective endocarditis: antimicrobial prophylaxis against infective endocarditis in adults and children undergoing interventional procedures. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guidance. London; 2008.

17. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, Nettles R, Fowler VG Jr, Ryan T, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30:633–8. //doi.org/10.1086/313753.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18. Cahill TJ, Harrison JL, Jewell P, Onakpoya I, Chambers JB, Dayer M, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for infective endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2017;103:937–44. //doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-309102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19. Baluta MM, Benea EO, Stanescu CM, Vintila MM. Endocarditis in the 21(st) Century. Maedica (Bucur). 2011;6(4):290–7. PMC3391947.

20. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3075–128. //doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

21. Sun YP, O’Gara PT. Cardiovascular conditions predisposing to infective endocarditis: time to reconsider the current risk classification system? Eur Heart J. 2018;39:596–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

22. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1:100–7. //doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.72352.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

23. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM group. Br J Surg. 2000;87:1448–54. //doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01610.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

24. Skrivankova VW, Richmond RC, Woolf BAR, Davies NM, Swanson SA, VanderWeele TJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2021;375:n2233. //doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2233.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25. Ostergaard L, Valeur N, Ihlemann N, Bundgaard H, Gislason G, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Incidence of infective endocarditis among patients considered at high risk. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:623–9. //doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx682.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

26. Tubiana S, Blotiere PO, Hoen B, Lesclous P, Millot S, Rudant J, et al. Dental procedures, antibiotic prophylaxis, and endocarditis among people with prosthetic heart valves: nationwide population based cohort and a case crossover study. BMJ. 2017;358:j3776. //doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3776.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27. Wilson WR, Gewitz M, Lockhart PB, Bolger AF, DeSimone DC, Kazi DS, et al. Prevention of Viridans group streptococcal infective endocarditis: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2021;143:e963–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

28. Wilson WR, Gewitz M, Lockhart PB, Bolger AF, DeSimone DC, Kazi DS, et al. Adapted from: Prevention of Viridans group streptococcal infective endocarditis: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. J Am Dent Assoc. 2021;152:886-902 e2. //doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

29. Strom BL, Abrutyn E, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Feldman RS, Stolley PD, et al. Dental and cardiac risk factors for infective endocarditis. A population-based, case–control study. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:761–9. //doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-129-10-199811150-00002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

30. Lacassin F, Hoen B, Leport C, Selton-Suty C, Delahaye F, Goulet V, et al. Procedures associated with infective endocarditis in adults. A case–control study. Eur Heart J. 1995;16:1968–74. //doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a060855.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31. Van der Meer JT, Van Wijk W, Thompson J, Vandenbroucke JP, Valkenburg HA, Michel MF. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of native-valve endocarditis. Lancet. 1992;339:135–9. //doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)90207-j.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

32. Imperiale TF, Horwitz RI. Does prophylaxis prevent postdental infective endocarditis? A controlled evaluation of protective efficacy. Am J Med. 1990;88:131–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

33. Thornhill MH, Jones S, Prendergast B, Baddour LM, Chambers JB, Lockhart PB, et al. Quantifying infective endocarditis risk in patients with predisposing cardiac conditions. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:586–95. //doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(90)90461-l.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34. Porat Ben-Amy D, Littner M, Siegman-Igra Y. Are dental procedures an important risk factor for infective endocarditis? A case-crossover study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;28:269–73. //doi.org/10.1007/s10096-008-0622-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

35. Duval X, Alla F, Hoen B, Danielou F, Larrieu S, Delahaye F, et al. Estimated risk of endocarditis in adults with predisposing cardiac conditions undergoing dental procedures with or without antibiotic prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:e102–7. //doi.org/10.1086/504385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

36. Vahasarja N, Lund B, Ternhag A, Gotrick B, Olaison L, Hultin M, et al. Infective endocarditis among high-risk individuals - before and after the cessation of antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry: a national cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2022. //doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac095.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

37. Pallasch TJ. Antibiotic prophylaxis: problems in paradise. Dent Clin North Am. 2003;47:665–79. //doi.org/10.1016/s0011-8532(03)00037-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38. Roberts GJ. Dentists are innocent! “Everyday” bacteremia is the real culprit: a review and assessment of the evidence that dental surgical procedures are a principal cause of bacterial endocarditis in children. Pediatr Cardiol. 1999;20:317–25. //doi.org/10.1007/s002469900477.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

39. Guntheroth WG. How important are dental procedures as a cause of infective endocarditis? Am J Cardiol. 1984;54:797–801. //doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9149(84)80211-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

40. Droz D, Koch L, Lenain A, Michalski H. Bacterial endocarditis: results of a survey in a children’s hospital in France. Br Dent J. 1997;183:101–5. //doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4809432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

41. Okell CCE, Elliot SD. Bacteriæmia and oral sepsis with special reference to the ætiology of subacute endocarditis. Lancet. 1935;226:869–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

42. Limeres Posse J, Alvarez Fernandez M, Fernandez Feijoo J, Medina Henriquez J, Lockhart PB, Chu VH, et al. Intravenous amoxicillin/clavulanate for the prevention of bacteraemia following dental procedures: a randomized clinical trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:2022–30. //doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkw081.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

43. Lockhart PB, Brennan MT, Sasser HC, Fox PC, Paster BJ, Bahrani-Mougeot FK. Bacteremia associated with toothbrushing and dental extraction. Circulation. 2008;117:3118–25. //doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.758524.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44. Karacaglar E, Akgun A, Ciftci O, Altiparmak N, Muderrisoglu H, Haberal M. Adequacy of infective endocarditis prophylaxis before dental procedures among solid organ transplant recipients. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2019;30:764–8. //doi.org/10.4103/1319-2442.265450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

45. Thornhill MH, Gibson TB, Durkin MJ, Dayer MJ, Lockhart PB, O’Gara PT, et al. Prescribing of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151:835-845 e31. //doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2020.07.021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

46. Rutherford SJ, Glenny AM, Roberts G, Hooper L, Worthington HV. Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing bacterial endocarditis following dental procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5:CD003813. //doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47. Quan TP, Muller-Pebody B, Fawcett N, Young BC, Minaji M, Sandoe J, et al. Investigation of the impact of the NICE guidelines regarding antibiotic prophylaxis during invasive dental procedures on the incidence of infective endocarditis in England: an electronic health records study. BMC Med. 2020;18:84. //doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01531-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48. Oliver R, Roberts GJ, Hooper L. Penicillins for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in dentistry. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;2:CD003813. //doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

49. Agha Z, Lofgren RP, VanRuiswyk JV. Is antibiotic prophylaxis for bacterial endocarditis cost-effective? Med Decis Making. 2005;25:308–20. //doi.org/10.1177/0272989X05276852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

50. Lockhart PB, Loven B, Brennan MT, Fox PC. The evidence base for the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(4):458–74; quiz 534–5, 437. //doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0198

51. Schwartz AB, Larson EL. Antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative complications after tooth extraction and implant placement: a review of the literature. J Dent. 2007;35:881–8. //doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.08.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

52. Duval X, Leport C. Prophylaxis of infective endocarditis: current tendencies, continuing controversies. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:225–32. //doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70064-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

53. Oliver R, Roberts GJ, Hooper L, Worthington HV. Antibiotics for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in dentistry. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;4:CD003813. //doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

54. Ellervall E, Vinge E, Rohlin M, Knutsson K. Antibiotic prophylaxis in oral healthcare—the agreement between Swedish recommendations and evidence. Br Dent J. 2010;208(3):E5; discussion 114–5. //doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.107

55. Thornhill MH, Dayer MJ, Forde JM, Corey GR, Chu VH, Couper DJ, et al. Impact of the NICE guideline recommending cessation of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of infective endocarditis: before and after study. BMJ. 2011;342:d2392. //doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2392.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56. Desimone DC, Tleyjeh IM, Correa de Sa DD, Anavekar NS, Lahr BD, Sohail MR, et al. Incidence of infective endocarditis caused by viridans group streptococci before and after publication of the 2007 American Heart Association’s endocarditis prevention guidelines. Circulation. 2012;126:60–4. //doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.095281.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57. Chirillo F, Faggiano P, Cecconi M, Moreo A, Squeri A, Gaddi O, et al. Predisposing cardiac conditions, interventional procedures, and antibiotic prophylaxis among patients with infective endocarditis. Am Heart J. 2016;179:42–50. //doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2016.03.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

58. Franklin M, Wailoo A, Dayer MJ, Jones S, Prendergast B, Baddour LM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at risk of infective endocarditis. Circulation. 2016;134:1568–78. //doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022047.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Zurich. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) grant # 320030_184918/1 (to BH) and the Clinical Research Priority Program (CRPP) of the University of Zurich for the CRPP Precision medicine for bacterial infections (to AZ, BH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data included in this publication are part of the medical thesis of SB at the Faculty of Science, University of Zurich.

Author information

Author notes

1. Judith Bergadà-Pijuan, Michelle Frank and Sara Boroumand have contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

   Judith Bergadà-Pijuan, Frédérique Hovaguimian, Annelies S. Zinkernagel, Roger D. Kouyos & Barbara Hasse

2. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

   Michelle Frank, Sara Boroumand & Frank Ruschitzka

3. Clinic for Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

   Carlos A. Mestres, Robert Bauernschmitt & Thierry Carrel

4. Department of Public and Global Health, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

   Frédérique Hovaguimian

5. Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

   Bernd Stadlinger

Authors

1. Judith Bergadà-Pijuan

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

2. Michelle Frank

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

3. Sara Boroumand

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

4. Frédérique Hovaguimian

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

5. Carlos A. Mestres

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

6. Robert Bauernschmitt

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

7. Thierry Carrel

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

8. Bernd Stadlinger

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

9. Frank Ruschitzka

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

10. Annelies S. Zinkernagel

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

11. Roger D. Kouyos

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

12. Barbara Hasse

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JBP, MF and SB did the search and wrote the first version of the manuscript. Conceptualization of the study: BH, MF, RDK; Data analysis: JBP, RDK. All other authors: critical review of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Judith Bergadà-Pijuan or Barbara Hasse.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest have been declared.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit //creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bergadà-Pijuan, J., Frank, M., Boroumand, S. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures to prevent infective endocarditis: a systematic review. Infection (2022). //doi.org/10.1007/s15010-022-01900-0

Download citation

• Received: 26 May 2022

• Accepted: 02 August 2022

• Published: 16 August 2022

• DOI: //doi.org/10.1007/s15010-022-01900-0

Keywords

• Infective endocarditis
• Dental procedure
• Endocarditis prophylaxis
• Endocarditis guidelines
• Antibiotic prophylaxis prior dental procedure
• High-risk patients

What are the recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis?

What antibiotics are used for endocarditis prophylaxis?

What are the American Heart Association antibiotic recommendations for a dental procedure?

What is the best antibiotic for dental prophylaxis?