The heart of it: dental care and cardiothoracic surgery.

Both dental and cardiovascular disease are prevalent in the general population, have common risk factors and may be closely associated.Following cardiothoracic surgery, patients may be higher risk for developing infective endocarditis (IE) than the general population. Before cardiothoracic interventions, it is common practice for a dental assessment to be carried out and any necessary dental treatment provided. This aims to reduce the risk of IE arising from dental sources and avoid dental pain or infection during the peri- and post-operative period. There is little guidance on which treatments should be performed and when.Many patients with cardiac disease may have dental treatment provided safely in primary care. However, there is often a need to consider additional factors, including bleeding risk, condition stability or medication interactions. Dental teams must have an awareness of the implications of cardiac disease and provide reasonable adjustments to care provision where necessary, ensuring patient safety.This article proposes a protocol for dental management of patients awaiting cardiothoracic surgery and explores important considerations for dental care in this patient group.

Early surgery to prevent embolic events in patients with infective endocarditis: a comprehensive review.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a dangerous and lethal illness with high mortality rates. One of the main indications for surgery according to the guidelines is prevention of embolic events. However, uncertainty remains concerning the timing of surgery and the effect of early surgery in combination with antibiotic therapy versus antibiotic therapy alone in IE patients with a vegetation size > 10 mm. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review by searching the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMbase databases. Titles and abstracts were screened, and studies of interest were selected for full-text assessment. Studies were selected for review if they met the criteria of comparing surgical treatment + antibiotic therapy to antibiotic therapy alone in patients with vegetations > 10 mm. RESULTS: We found 1,503 studies through our database search; nine of these were eligible for review, with a total number of 3,565 patients. Median age was 66 years (range: 17-80) and the median percentage of male patients was 65.6% (range: 61.8 - 71.4%). There was one randomised controlled trial, one prospective study, and seven retrospective studies. Seven studies found surgery + antibiotic therapy to be associated with better outcomes in patients with IE and vegetations > 10 mm, one of them being the randomised trial [hazard ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.82]. Two studies found surgery + antibiotic therapy was associated with poorer outcomes compared with antibiotic therapy alone. CONCLUSION: Overall, data vary in quality due to low numbers and selection bias. Evidence is conflicting, yet suggest that surgery + antibiotic therapy is associated with better outcomes in patients with IE and vegetations > 10 mm for prevention of emboli. Properly powered randomised trials are warranted.

[Treatment of infective endocarditis]. / Prise en charge thérapeutique des endocardites infectieuses.

TREATMENT OF INFECTIVE ENDOCARDITIS. Patients with infective endocarditis (IE) are taken care for by multidisciplinary teams. The treatment consists of antibiotic therapy initiated early, adapted to the responsible germ and prolonged, associated with surgical treatment when there is an indication for surgery. A parenteral antibiotic therapy is initiated in hospital for a period of at least two weeks. Depending on evolution of the patients, outpatient antibiotic treatment may be considered, and oral antibiotics may be proposed in stable patients when IE is caused by the most frequent germs. The surgical treatment of IE consists of total excision of the infected tissues and aims to restore the integrity of valvular functions. Conservative surgical treatment is performed, when possible, otherwise valve replacement is the alternative. The recognition of surgical indications (heart failure, uncontrolled infection, and prevention of embolic risk) is essential to improve the prognosis.

[Infectious endocarditis: from epidemiology to prevention]. / Endocardites infectieuses : de l'épidémiologie à la prévention.

INFECTIOUS ENDOCARDITIS: FROM EPIDEMIOLOGY TO PREVENTION. The incidence of infective endocarditis is estimated between 30 and 80 cases per million inhabitants and per year in the general population in industrialized countries. It is heterogeneous and increases sharply in the presence of certain underlying heart diseases; it exceeds 1% per year in patients with a history of endocarditis. Incidence increases after the age of 60 and Staphylococcus is now the most frequent responsible microorganism. Antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated only in the patients who are at high risk of infective endocarditis and who undergo invasive dental care. The recommendations published in 2023 by the European Society of Cardiology highlig.

ENDOCARDITES INFECTIEUSES: DE L'ÉPIDÉMIOLOGIE À LA PRÉVENTION. L'incidence de l'endocardite infectieuse est estimée entre 30 et 80 cas par million d'habitants et par an en population générale dans les pays industrialisés. Cette incidence est hétérogène et augmente très nettement dans certaines cardiopathies sous-jacentes : elle dépasse 1 % par an chez les patients ayant un antécédent d'endocardite. L'incidence est majorée après 60 ans, et le staphylocoque est désormais la bactérie la plus souvent en cause. L'antibioprophylaxie n'est indiquée que chez les patients ayant un risque élevé d'endocardite infectieuse et soumis à des soins dentaires invasifs. Les recommandations publiées en 2023 par l'European Society of Cardiology soulignent l'importance des mesures non spécifiques d'hygiène bucco-dentaire et cutanée dans la prévention.

Automated titanium fastener for surgical aortic valve replacement-preventive role for infective endocarditis?

OBJECTIVES: Evidence on long-term clinical outcomes considering suture-securing techniques used for surgical aortic valve replacement is still uncertain. METHODS: A total of 1405 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement between January 2016 and December 2022 were included and grouped according to the suture-securing technique used (automated titanium fastener versus hand-tied knots). The occurrence of infective endocarditis during follow-up was set as the primary study end-point. As secondary study end-points, stroke, all-cause mortality and a composite outcome of either infective endocarditis, stroke, or all-cause mortality were assessed. RESULTS: The automated titanium fastener was used in 829 (59%) patients, whereas the hand-knot tying technique was used in 576 (41%) patients. The multivariable proportional competing risk regression analysis showed a significantly lower risk of infective endocarditis during follow-up in the automated titanium fastener group (adjusted sub-hazard ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.94, P = 0.035). The automated titanium fastener group was not associated with an increased risk of mortality or attaining the composite outcome, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.60-1.09, P = 0.169; adjusted hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.07, P = 0.152). This group was not associated with an increased risk of stroke (adjusted sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.45, P = 0.504). Also, a significantly lower rate of early-onset infective endocarditis was observed in the automated titanium fastener group, (0.4% vs 1.4%, P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Suture-securing with an automated titanium fastener device appears to be superior compared to the hand-knot tying technique in terms of lower risk of infective endocarditis.

New evidence calls into question NICE's endocarditis prevention guidance.

In 2008, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommended against the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to prevent infective endocarditis (IE). They did so because of lack of AP efficacy evidence and adverse reaction concerns. Consequently, NICE concluded AP was not cost-effective and should not be recommended. In 2015, NICE reviewed its guidance and continued to recommend against AP. However, it subsequently changed its wording to 'antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not routinely recommended'. The lack of explanation of what constituted routinely (and not routinely), or how to manage non-routine patients, caused enormous confusion and NICE remained out of step with all major international guideline committees who continued to recommend AP for those at high risk.Since the 2015 guideline review, new data have confirmed an association between IDPs and subsequent IE and demonstrated AP efficacy in reducing IE risk following IDPs in high-risk patients. New evidence also shows that in high-risk patients, the IE risk following IDPs substantially exceeds any adverse reaction risk, and that AP is therefore highly cost-effective. Given the new evidence, a NICE guideline review would seem appropriate so that UK high-risk patients can receive the same protection afforded high-risk patients in the rest of the world.

Prevention of infective endocarditis in at-risk patients: how should dentists proceed in 2024?

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines are ambiguous over the need for patients at increased risk of infective endocarditis (IE) to receive antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to invasive dental procedures (IDPs), and this has caused confusion for patients and dentists alike. Moreover, the current law on consent requires clinicians to ensure that patients are made aware of any material risk they might be exposed to by any proposed dental treatment and what can be done to ameliorate this risk, so that the patient can decide for themselves how they wish to proceed. The aim of this article is to provide dentists with the latest information on the IE-risk posed by IDPs to different patient populations (the general population and those defined as being at moderate or high risk of IE), and data on the effectiveness of AP in reducing the IE risk in these populations. This provides the information dentists need to facilitate the informed consent discussions they are legally required to have with patients at increased risk of IE about the risks posed by IDPs and how this can be minimised. The article also provides practical information and advice for dentists on how to manage patients at increased IE risk who present for dental treatment.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Infective Endocarditis Incidence Following Invasive Dental Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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.

Assessment of the current knowledge about infective endocarditis prevention among dental hygienists in Italy: A national survey.

OBJECTIVES: To date, there is a lack of data regarding the acceptance of the guidelines for infective endocarditis (IE) prevention among dentists in Italy, and similarly, there are no data on the understanding and compliance of those among dental hygienists (DH). Thus, we tried to assess the ability of DH to recognize and manage categories of patients at high risk of EI, to identify which dental procedures are at increased risk and to assess the level of knowledge of doses and how antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered in specific cases. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was prepared and made accessible online by sharing a Google Forms® link; general personal data and educational background information were collected to obtain a profile of the participants. RESULTS: A total of 362 DH answered to our web-based survey, showing a prevalent female percentage (86.7%) and the most represented age group of 30-39 years old (43.1%). Regarding the gender differences, there were not overall statistically significant differences; similarly, we did not find any differences regarding the overall number of wrong questions if considering the different ages of the participant and the year of graduation. Graduates in Northern Italy have mistaken fewer questions than graduates in other geographical areas. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest survey about the knowledge of IE for DH ever performed. Because the overprescription of antibiotics contributes to the development of drug resistance, antibiotic stewardship should be at the forefront of patient care. Our data reflect the need for placing a greater emphasis on IE prophylaxis education in training and during continuing professional development events for DH.

Appropriate antibiotic use in dentistry: a review of the literature and clinical recommendations.

This article reviews the latest evidence on the use of antibiotics in dentistry, beginning with the risks of antibiotic use, which include Clostridioides difficile infection and antimicrobial resistance. The article then reviews the clinical practice guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with prosthetic joints or at high risk for infective endocarditis. In the absence of established guidelines, the discussion also examines the published evidence on best practices for antibiotic prophylaxis with regard to other medical conditions (eg, kidney disease, cancer, or immunosuppression), dental extractions, minor oral surgical procedures, and implant placement, offering sample prescriptions for these situations. In addition, the current clinical practice guideline for antibiotic use in patients with endodontic infections is reviewed. Due to the alarming rates of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections and increasing antimicrobial resistance, it is imperative that dentists use evidence-based guidelines and recommendations when prescribing antibiotics to prevent and treat oral infections.

Infective Endocarditis Antibiotic Prophylaxis: Review of the Evidence and Guidelines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The question of antibiotic prophylaxis and its role in prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) remains controversial, with differing recommendations from international societies. The aim of this review was to compare and contrast current recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis for IE by the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and highlight the evidence supporting these recommendations. RECENT FINDINGS: International guidelines for administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of IE are largely unchanged since 2009. Studies on the impact of the more restrictive antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations are conflicting, with several studies suggesting lack of adherence to current guidance from the ESC (2015), NICE (2016), and AHA (2021). The question of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with IE remains controversial, with differing recommendations from international societies. Despite the change in guidelines more than 15 years ago, lack of adherence to current guidelines persists. Due to the lack of high-quality evidence and the conflicting results from observational studies along with the lack of randomized clinical trials, the question of whether to recommend antibiotic prophylaxis or not in certain patient populations remains unanswered and remains largely based on expert consensus opinion.

Recent infective endocarditis research findings suggest dentists prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for patients having a 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. (AU)

Nondental Invasive Procedures and Risk of Infective Endocarditis: Time for a Revisit: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

There have been no published prospective randomized clinical trials that have: (1) established an association between invasive dental and nondental invasive procedures and risk of infective endocarditis; or (2) defined the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis administered in the setting of invasive procedures in the prevention of infective endocarditis in high-risk patients. Moreover, previous observational studies that examined the association of nondental invasive procedures with the risk of infective endocarditis have been limited by inadequate sample size. They have typically focused on a few potential at-risk surgical and nonsurgical invasive procedures. However, recent investigations from Sweden and England that used nationwide databases and demonstrated an association between nondental invasive procedures, and the subsequent development of infective endocarditis (in particular, in high-risk patients with infective endocarditis) prompted the development of the current science advisory.