Key result
Restricting prophylactic antibiotics per ESC guidelines is linked to a ~33% increase in infective endocarditis.
Why the study?
The scientific validity of the ESC infective endocarditis guidelines limiting antibiotic prophylaxis only to patients with cardiac anomalies placing them at high risk during high-risk dental procedures was unclear.
Does limiting prophylactic antibiotics according to ESC guidelines increase the incidence and fatality of infective endocarditis in patients with bicuspid aortic valve or mitral valve prolapse?
Systematic Review
Does limiting prophylactic antibiotics according to ESC guidelines increase the incidence and fatality of infective endocarditis in patients with bicuspid aortic valve or mitral valve prolapse?
Relative Risk: 1.327 (95% CI 1.205–1.462)
p-value: p=<0.001
Limiting endocarditis prophylaxis according to ESC guidelines is associated with increased incidence and fatal outcomes of infective endocarditis in patients with 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Friedlander et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Infective endocarditis. 2015 ESC guidelines restricting prophylactic antibiotics vs. Projected historical trend (prior to guidelines) was evaluated on Incidence of infective endocarditis cases over projected historical trend (rate ratio 1.327, 95% CI 1.205-1.462, p=<0.001). Restricting prophylactic antibiotics per ESC guidelines was associated with a significant increase in infective endocarditis incidence (rate ratio 1.327) compared to historical trends.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: