Does antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures prevent infective endocarditis?

4.2 Infective Endocarditis

Since 1955, several recommendations have been made by various expert committees and societies for antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing IE secondary to dental procedures [94]. These guidelines were based on the viewpoint that antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce or eliminate the bacteremia caused by dental or other invasive procedures and prevent IE. However, these recommendations were based on expert opinions and clinical experiences rather than double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trials. No controlled studies have revealed that antibiotic prophylaxis has decreased the incidence of IE. In fact, for many patients, the adverse effects of antibiotic prophylaxis outweigh its benefits. Injudicious antibiotic use can lead to the development of resistant organisms, drug toxicity, and excessive treatment cost [58].

Dental Management Considerations for Patients with Cardiovascular Disease—A Narrative Review. Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

2.1. Antibiotic Prophylaxis in a Patient with a Risk for IE Development

Based on a comprehensive review of papers published in the relevant literature, AHA adopted the new guidelines for the prevention of IE before dental procedures in May 2021. Despite the fact that the disease is rare, and the fact that there is no convincing direct evidence that dental procedures induce IE, the AHA continues to recommend antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental procedures in some cases [4]. The AHA also considers that prophylaxis before dental procedures can only prevent a small percentage of IE, even if prophylaxis would be completely effective [4,8]. According to the 2021 AHA guidelines, antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated before certain dental procedures in groups of cardiovascular patients who are at greater risk of poor outcome from IE [8,9]. Prior to a dental procedure which involves an operation in the gingival area, periapical tooth manipulation and biopsy/perforation or oral mucosal tissue antibiotic prophylaxis should be prescribed in the group of patients with valvular heart disease and any of the following diagnoses listed in Table 1:

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Prior to Dental Procedures. © 2024 by the authors. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

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.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures is still unclear. Indications for antibiotic prophylaxis were restricted by guidelines beginning in 2007. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and analyze existing evidence on the association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Proquest, Embase, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to May 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Studies on the association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures or time-trend analyses of infective endocarditis incidence before and after current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study quality was evaluated using structured tools. Data were extracted by independent observers. A pooled relative risk (RR) of developing infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in individuals who were receiving antibiotic prophylaxis vs those who were not was computed by random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The outcome of interest was the incidence of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in relation to antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS: Of 11 217 records identified, 30 were included (1 152 345 infective endocarditis cases). Of them, 8 (including 12 substudies) were either case-control/crossover or cohort studies or self-controlled case series, while 22 were time-trend studies; all were of good quality. Eight of the 12 substudies with case-control/crossover, cohort, or self-controlled case series designs performed a formal statistical analysis; 5 supported a protective role of antibiotic prophylaxis, especially among individuals at high risk, while 3 did not. By meta-analysis, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures in individuals at high risk (pooled RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; P for heterogeneity = .51; I2, 0%). Nineteen of the 22 time-trend studies performed a formal pre-post statistical analysis; 9 found no significant changes in infective endocarditis incidence, 7 demonstrated a significant increase for the overall population or subpopulations (individuals at high and moderate risk, streptococcus-infective endocarditis, and viridans group streptococci-infective endocarditis), whereas 3 found a significant decrease for the overall population and among oral streptococcus-infective endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While results from time-trend studies were inconsistent, data from case-control/crossover, cohort, and self-controlled case series studies showed that use of antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with reduced risk of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in individuals at high risk, while no association was proven for those at low/unknown risk, thereby supporting current American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology recommendations. Currently, there is insufficient data to support any benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in individuals at moderate risk.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia, which could lead to bacterial endocarditis in a small proportion of people. The incidence of bacterial endocarditis is low, but it has a high mortality rate.  Guidelines in many countries have recommended that antibiotics be administered to people at high risk of endocarditis prior to invasive dental procedures. However, guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales states that antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not recommended routinely for people undergoing dental procedures. This is an update of a review that we first conducted in 2004 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration, compared to no antibiotic administration or placebo, before invasive dental procedures in people at risk or at high risk of bacterial endocarditis, influences mortality, serious illness or the incidence of endocarditis. Secondary objectives To determine whether the effect of dental antibiotic prophylaxis differs in people with different cardiac conditions predisposing them to increased risk of endocarditis, and in people undergoing different high risk dental procedures. Harms Had we foundno evidence from randomised controlled trials or cohort studies on whether prophylactic antibiotics affected mortality or serious illness, and we had found evidence from these or case-control studies suggesting that prophylaxis with antibiotics reduced the incidence of endocarditis, then we would also have assessed whether the harms of prophylaxis with single antibiotic doses, such as with penicillin (amoxicillin 2 g or 3 g) before invasive dental procedures, compared with no antibiotic or placebo, equalled the benefits in prevention of endocarditis in people at high risk of this disease. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 10 May 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: Due to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis, we anticipated that few if any trials would be located. For this reason, we included cohort and case-control studies with suitably matched control or comparison groups. The intervention was antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no antibiotic prophylaxis or placebo, before a dental procedure in people with an increased risk of bacterial endocarditis. Cohort studies would need to follow at-risk individuals and assess outcomes following any invasive dental procedures, grouping participants according to whether or not they had received prophylaxis. Case-control studies would need to match people who had developed endocarditis after undergoing an invasive dental procedure (and who were known to be at increased risk before undergoing the procedure) with those at similar risk who had not developed endocarditis.  Our outcomes of interest were mortality or serious adverse events requiring hospital admission; development of endocarditis following any dental procedure in a defined time period; development of endocarditis due to other non-dental causes; any recorded adverse effects of the antibiotics; and the cost of antibiotic provision compared to that of caring for patients who developed endocarditis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search records, selected studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in the included study and extracted data from the included study. As an author team, we judged the certainty of the evidence identified for the main comparison and key outcomes using GRADE criteria. We presented the main results in a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: Our new search did not find any new studies for inclusion since the last version of the review in 2013. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or cohort studies were included in the previous versions of the review, but one case-control study met the inclusion criteria. The trial authors collected information on 48 people who had contracted bacterial endocarditis over a specific two-year period and had undergone a medical or dental procedure with an indication for prophylaxis within the past 180 days. These people were matched to a similar group of people who had not contracted bacterial endocarditis. All study participants had undergone an invasive medical or dental procedure. The two groups were compared to establish whether those who had received preventive antibiotics (penicillin) were less likely to have developed endocarditis. The authors found no significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis. No data on other outcomes were reported. The level of certainty we have about the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There remains no clear evidence about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in at-risk people who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. We cannot determine whether the potential harms and costs of antibiotic administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners should discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) is recommended to prevent infective endocarditis (IE) in those at high IE risk, but there are sparse data supporting a link between IDPs and IE or AP efficacy in IE prevention. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate any association between IDPs and IE, and the effectiveness of AP in reducing this. METHODS: We performed a case-crossover analysis and cohort study of the association between IDPs and IE, and AP efficacy, in 7,951,972 U.S. subjects with employer-provided Commercial/Medicare-Supplemental coverage. RESULTS: Time course studies showed that IE was most likely to occur within 4&#xa0;weeks of an IDP. For those at high IE risk, case-crossover analysis demonstrated a significant temporal association between IE and IDPs in the preceding 4&#xa0;weeks (OR: 2.00; 95%&#xa0;CI: 1.59-2.52; P = 0.002). This relationship was strongest for dental extractions (OR: 11.08; 95%&#xa0;CI: 7.34-16.74; P&#xa0;< 0.0001) and oral-surgical procedures (OR: 50.77; 95%&#xa0;CI: 20.79-123.98; P&#xa0;< 0.0001). AP was associated with a significant reduction in IE incidence following IDP (OR: 0.49; 95%&#xa0;CI: 0.29-0.85; P = 0.01). The cohort study confirmed the associations between IE and extractions or oral surgical procedures in those at high IE risk and the effect of AP in reducing these associations (extractions: OR: 0.13; 95%&#xa0;CI: 0.03-0.34; P&#xa0;< 0.0001; oral surgical procedures: OR: 0.09; 95%&#xa0;CI: 0.01-0.35; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a significant temporal association between IDPs (particularly extractions and oral-surgical procedures) and subsequent IE in high-IE-risk individuals, and a significant association between AP use and reduced IE incidence following these procedures. These data support the American Heart Association, and other, recommendations that those at high IE risk should receive AP before IDP.

Abstract

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.