PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 14, 2026Open Forum Infectious Diseases0 citationsOpen Access

P-136. Endocarditis Incidence Before and After Changes to Dental Prophylaxis Guidelines

View Full Paper
MDMichelle C. DavidsonKIKevin Ikuta

Key Points

  • The study aimed to evaluate the incidence of infective endocarditis after changes to antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines.
  • Reviewed national guidelines for infective endocarditis antibiotic prophylaxis using PubMed and cardiac society websites.
  • Identified countries that updated guidelines to restrict prophylaxis to high-risk patients and the timing of changes.
  • Analyzed incidence rates of infective endocarditis for ten years before and after guideline changes using interrupted time series.
  • Identified 66 countries that restricted antibiotic prophylaxis to high-risk patients.
  • Found a statistically significant increase in incidence rate of infective endocarditis over time (p<0.05).
  • The increase in incidence rate was not significantly associated with the timing of the guideline changes (p=0.90).

Abstract

Abstract Background Infective endocarditis (IE) causes high morbidity and mortality worldwide, particularly in patients with underlying cardiac conditions. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures, and many cardiac societies have updated their guidelines to restrict prophylaxis to high-risk patients only, including the American Heart Association (AHA) in 2007, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in 2009, and other national societies. The aim of our study was to investigate whether the incidence of IE increased after guidelines became more restrictive.Figure 1.Rates of Endocarditis Before and After Dental Prophylaxis Guideline Changes Methods We reviewed national guidelines for IE antibiotic prophylaxis through PubMed and country-specific cardiac society websites to identify countries that changed their guidelines to restrict prophylaxis to high-risk patients and the year this change occurred. We used the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 to determine the incidence of IE for each country before and after their guidelines changed. Using an interrupted time series, we analyzed incidence rates of IE for the ten years before and ten years after each country’s change, grouped by WHO region. Results We identified 66 countries with guidelines updated to restrict antibiotic prophylaxis to high-risk patients only. This included 54 ESC-member countries following ESC guidelines, three ESC member countries with their own guidelines, and nine non-ESC countries. Countries from each of the WHO regions were represented. Two countries had guidelines updated less than 10 years ago. Our interrupted time series analysis found a statistically significant increase in incidence rate of IE over time (p 0.05); however, this change was not significantly associated with the timing of change in guidelines (p=0.90). Conclusion Our findings suggest that IE incidence was not impacted by restricting antibiotic prophylaxis to high-risk patients only. This supports the current guidelines of the ESC, AHA, and other national guidelines with similar recommendations. Our findings support the need for additional research on the appropriate use of antibiotic prophylaxis for specific groups. Limitations of this study include the assumption that national guidelines were followed and that a limited number of countries had guidelines identified. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Davidson et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6966e73513bf7a6f02bffd0dhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf695.363
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper