Why the study?
Does antibiotic prophylaxis prevent infective endocarditis in at-risk patients undergoing interventional procedures?
Does antibiotic prophylaxis prevent infective endocarditis in at-risk patients undergoing interventional procedures?
This summary of NICE guidance highlights a shift towards a more limited role for antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing infective endocarditis during interventional procedures.
Supports limiting prophylaxis to highest-risk cases only; confirms systematic reviews and challenges historical broad recommendations.
Infective endocarditis is a rare condition with a high mortality and morbidity. Accepted clinical practice has been to use antibiotic prophylaxis in those at risk of infective endocarditis who are having dental and certain non-dental interventional procedures, in the belief that this may prevent the development of infective endocarditis. The effectiveness of such antibiotic prophylaxis in humans is, however, not proved1 and recent international guidelines recommend a much more limited role for antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis. This article summarises the most recent guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) on antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis.2 NICE recommendations are based on systematic reviews of best available evidence. When minimal evidence is available recommendations are based on the guideline development group’s opinion of what constitutes good practice. With a serious rare condition, such as infective endocarditis, research using experimental study designs is difficult and the evidence base consists of observational (predominantly case-control) studies. Evidence levels for the recommendations are given in italic in square brackets. ### Identifying cardiac risk factors Regard patients with the following cardiac conditions as being at risk of developing infective endocarditis [ based on moderate quality evidence from medium sized observational studies ]:
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richey et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: