Infective endocarditis: Updated guidelines

Canadian Paediatric Society, Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee.
The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale / AMMI Canada (Impact Factor: 0.69). 06/2010; 21(2):74-7.
Source: PubMed


The most recent revision of the American Heart Association guidelines on infective endocarditis prophylaxis occurred in 2007. These revisions were based on the fact that current data have brought into question the benefit of previous recommendations for infective endocarditis prophylaxis. It was noted that the bacteremia that occurs following dental procedures represents only a fraction of the episodes of bacteremia that occur with activities of daily living (such as chewing, brushing teeth and other oral hygiene measures). The target groups and the procedures for which prophylaxis is reasonable have been significantly reduced in number. The focus is now on patients who are most likely to have adverse outcomes from infectious endocarditis. The present article is targeted at practicing Canadian physicians and provides the rationale for the current recommendations. In addition to a summary of the indications for prophylaxis, information is provided on the conditions for which prophylaxis is not recommended.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) septicemia is associated with high morbidity and mortality especially in patients with immunosuppression, diabetes, renal disease and endocarditis. There has been an increase in implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) with more cases of device-lead associated endocarditis been seen. A high index of suspicion is required to ensure patient outcomes are optimized. The excimer laser has been very efficient in helping to ensure successful lead extractions in patients with CIED infections. We present an unusual case report and literature review of MRSA septicemia from device-lead endocarditis and the importance of early recognition and prompt treatment.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2012 · World Journal of Cardiology (WJC)
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Joint implant infection rates range between 0.5% and 3%. Contamination may be hematogenous, originating in oro-dental infection and, as in endocarditis, antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended to cover oro-dental surgery in immunodepressed patients with joint implants less than 2 years old, despite the lack of any formal proof of efficacy. In this context, the cost and side effects of such prophylaxis raise the question of its real utility. Materials and methods: A search of Pubmed was performed using the following keywords: prosthetic joint infection, dental procedure, antibiotic prophylaxis, hematogenous infection, dental infection, bacteremia, and endocarditis. Six hundred and fifty articles were retrieved, 68 of which were analyzed in terms of orthopedic prosthetic infection and/or endocarditis and oro-dental prophylaxis, as relevant to the following questions: frequency and intensity of bacteremia of oro-dental origin, frequency of prosthetic joint infection secondary to dental surgery, and objective efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental surgery in patients with joint implants. Results: Bacteremia of oro-dental origin is more frequently associated with everyday activities such as mastication than with tooth extraction. Isolated cases of prosthetic contamination from dental infection have been reported, but epidemiological studies in joint implant bearers found that absence of antibiotic prophylaxis during oro-dental surgery did not increase the rate of prosthetic infection. The analysis was not able to answer the question of the efficacy of dental antibiotic prophylaxis in immunodepressed patients; however, oro-dental hygiene and regular dental treatment reduce the risk of prosthetic infection by 30%. Discussion and conclusion: The present update is in agreement with the conclusions of ANSM expert group, which advised against antibiotic prophylaxis in oro-dental surgery in implant bearers, regardless of implant duration or comorbidity: the associated costs and risks are disproportional to efficacy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE AND TYPE OF STUDY: Level V; expert opinion.
    Preview · Article · Nov 2012 · Orthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Le taux d’infection de prothèse articulaire varie entre 0,5 et 3 %. Certaines contaminations sont contractées par voie hématogène à partir de foyers infectieux buccodentaires. Par analogie avec l’endocardite, une antibioprophylaxie était donc conseillée pour couvrir les gestes buccodentaires chez les patients immunodéprimés porteurs d’une prothèse articulaire depuis moins de deux ans, bien qu’il n’existe pas de preuve formelle de son efficacité. C’est pourquoi, le coût et ses effets secondaires ont conduit à en rediscuter l’utilité. Nous avons sélectionné dans Pubmed les articles sur les mots clés suivants : prosthetic joint infection, dental procedure, antibiotic prophylaxis, haematogenous infection, dental infection, bacteremia, endocarditis. Parmi ces 650 articles sélectionnés, 68 ont été retenus concernant l’infection de prothèses orthopédiques et/ou endocardite et la prophylaxie buccodentaire car permettant répondre aux questions suivantes : fréquence et intensité des bactériémies d’origine buccodentaire, fréquence des infections de prothèse articulaire après un geste dentaire et efficacité réelle de l’antibioprophylaxie en cas de gestes dentaires chez des patients porteurs de prothèse articulaire. Les bactériémies d’origine buccodentaire sont plus fréquentes dans les actes de la vie quotidienne comme la mastication, qu’au décours des extractions dentaires. Si des cas isolés de contamination prothétique à partir d’infections dentaires ont été rapportés, les études épidémiologiques sur des populations de porteurs de prothèse articulaires montrent que l’absence de prophylaxie lors de soins buccodentaires n’augmente pas la fréquence des infections prothétiques. Cette analyse ne permet pas de répondre à la question de l’efficacité de l’antibioprophylaxie dentaire chez les patients immunodéprimés porteurs de prothèses articulaires. En revanche, l’hygiène buccodentaire et les soins dentaires réguliers diminuent le risque d’infection de prothèse de 30 %. Cette mise au point rejoint les conclusions du groupe d’experts de l’ANSM qui s’est prononcé en défaveur d’une antibioprophylaxie en cas de gestes buccodentaires chez un patient porteur d’une prothèse quels que soient l’ancienneté de la prothèse et les co-morbidités du patient. En effet, son coût et ses risques apparaissent excéder son efficacité. Niveau de Preuve avec le type d’étude Niveau V : avis d’expert.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2012 · Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique
Show more