-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of infectious complications following tooth extractions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 16 April 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 April 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 April 2020), and LILACS (1982 to 16 April 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included studies. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for key outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low, using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 trials that randomised approximately 3206 participants (2583 analysed) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, only one of the trials evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in groups of patients affected by those clinical conditions. We assessed 16 trials as being at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and four as unclear. Compared to placebo, antibiotics may reduce the risk of postsurgical infectious complications in patients undergoing third molar extractions by approximately 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1728 participants; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 19 people (95% CI 15 to 34) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. The evidence for our other outcomes is uncertain: pain, whether measured dichotomously as presence or absence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12; 675 participants; 3 studies) or continuously using a visual analogue scale (0-to-10-centimetre scale, where 0 is no pain) (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.07; 422 participants; 4 studies); fever (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 475 participants; 4 studies); and adverse effects, which were mild and transient (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.64; 1277 participants; 8 studies) (very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence that the timing of antibiotic administration (preoperative, postoperative, or both) was important. The included studies enrolled a subset of patients undergoing dental extractions, that is healthy people who had surgical extraction of third molars. Consequently, the results of this review may not be generalisable to all people undergoing tooth extractions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority (21 out of 23) of the trials included in this review included only healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. None of the studies evaluated tooth extraction in immunocompromised patients. We found low-certainty evidence that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection and dry socket following third molar extraction when compared to placebo, and very low-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk of adverse effects. On average, treating 19 healthy patients with prophylactic antibiotics may stop one person from getting an infection. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to patients with concomitant illnesses or patients at a higher risk of infection. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment, clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions (healthy or affected by systemic pathology) and level of risk from infective complications. Immunocompromised patients, in particular, need an individualised approach in consultation with their treating medical specialist.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Infections; Bias; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 33624847
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003811.pub3 -
Infection Feb 2023Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe bacterial infection. As a measure of prevention, the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to dental procedures was... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe bacterial infection. As a measure of prevention, the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to dental procedures was recommended in the past. However, between 2007 and 2009, guidelines for IE prophylaxis changed all around the word, limiting or supporting the complete cessation of AP. It remains unclear whether AP is effective or not against IE.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review whether the administration of AP in adults before any dental procedure, compared to the non-administration of such drugs, has an effect on the risk of developing IE. We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OVID, and EMBASE. Two different authors filtered articles independently and data extraction was performed based on a pre-defined protocol.
RESULTS
The only cohort study meeting our criteria included patients at high-risk of IE. Analysis of the extracted data showed a non-significant decrease in the risk of IE when high-risk patients take AP prior to invasive dental procedures (RR 0.39, p-value 0.11). We did not find other studies including patients at low or moderate risk of IE. Qualitative evaluation of the excluded articles reveals diversity of results and suggests that most of the state-of-the-art articles are underpowered.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence to support or discourage the use of AP prior to dental procedures as a prevention for IE is very low. New high-quality studies are needed, even though such studies would require big settings and might not be immediately feasible.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cohort Studies; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Endocarditis; Dentistry
PubMed: 35972680
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-022-01900-0 -
Acta Gastro-enterologica Belgica 2021Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is a potentially life-threatening infection in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites. Its prevention is vital to improve prognosis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is a potentially life-threatening infection in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites. Its prevention is vital to improve prognosis of cirrhotic patients. The main objective of this systematic review was to evaluate what is the most efficacious and safest antibiotic prophylactic strategy.
METHODS
Studies were located by searching PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library until February 2019. Randomized controlled trials evaluating primary or secondary spontaneous bacterial peritonitis prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with ascites were included. The selection of studies was performed in two stages: screening of titles and abstracts, and assessment of the full papers identified as relevant, considering the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted in a standardized way and synthesized qualitatively.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included. This systematic review demonstrated that daily norfloxacin is effective as a prophylactic antibiotic for the prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis. Once weekly ciprofloxacin was not inferior to once daily norfloxacin, with good tolerance and no induced resistance. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and norfloxacin have similar efficacy for primary and secondary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, however, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with an increased risk of developing an adverse event. Rifaximin was more effective than norfloxacin in the secondary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, with a significant decrease in adverse events and mortality rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Continuous long-term selective intestinal decontamination with norfloxacin is the most widely used prophylactic strategy in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, yet other equally effective and safe options are available.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Ascites; Bacterial Infections; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Norfloxacin; Peritonitis
PubMed: 34217185
DOI: 10.51821/84.2.333 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2021Nocardiosis is a rare infection that is often difficult to treat and may be life-threatening. There is no consensus on its management.
BACKGROUND
Nocardiosis is a rare infection that is often difficult to treat and may be life-threatening. There is no consensus on its management.
OBJECTIVES
Our aim was to provide the current evidence for the diagnosis and management of individuals with nocardiosis, and to propose a management approach for this uncommon infection.
SOURCES
We systematically searched the medical literature on nocardiosis for studies published between 2010 and 2020 and describing ten or more individuals.
CONTENT
Nocardiosis, a primarily opportunistic infection which may occur in immunocompetent persons, most commonly involves the lungs and frequently disseminates to other sites including the central nervous system. The reference standard for Nocardia species identification is molecular biology, and the preferred method for antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) is broth microdilution. Monotherapy seems appropriate for patients with primary skin nocardiosis or non-severe pulmonary disease; we reserve a multidrug regimen for more severe infections. Species identification and AST results are often missing at initiation of antibiotics. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is the preferred agent for initial therapy, because Nocardia is very often susceptible to this agent, and because it has been the keystone of nocardiosis treatment for years. Linezolid, to which Nocardia is almost always susceptible, may be an alternative. When combination therapy is required, the repertoire of companion drugs includes third-generation cephalosporins, amikacin and imipenem. Therapeutic modifications should take into account clinical response to initial therapy and AST results. Treatment duration of 6 months is appropriate for most situations, but longer durations are preferred for disseminated nocardiosis and shorter durations are reasonable in low-risk situations. Secondary prophylaxis may be considered in selected individuals with permanent immunosuppression.
IMPLICATIONS
We hereby provide the clinician with an easy-to-use algorithm for the management of individuals with nocardiosis. We also illuminate gaps in evidence and suggest future research directions.
Topics: Algorithms; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Nocardia; Nocardia Infections
PubMed: 33418019
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.12.019 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2023The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant...
SCOPE
The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) before surgery.
METHODS
These evidence-based guidelines were developed after a systematic review of published studies on PAP targeting the following MDR-GNB: extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant Enterobacterales, fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales, cotrimoxazole-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, colistin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The critical outcomes were the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by any bacteria and/or by the colonizing MDR-GNB, and SSI-attributable mortality. Important outcomes included the occurrence of any type of postsurgical infectious complication, all-cause mortality, and adverse events of PAP, including development of resistance to targeted (culture-based) PAP after surgery and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infections. The last search of all databases was performed until April 30, 2022. The level of evidence and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached for the final list of recommendations. Antimicrobial stewardship considerations were included in the recommendation development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The guideline panel reviewed the evidence, per bacteria, of the risk of SSIs in patients colonized with MDR-GNB before surgery and critically appraised the existing studies. Significant knowledge gaps were identified, and most questions were addressed by observational studies. Moderate to high risk of bias was identified in the retrieved studies, and the majority of the recommendations were supported by low level of evidence. The panel conditionally recommends rectal screening and targeted PAP for fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and for extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales in patients undergoing colorectal surgery and solid organ transplantation. Screening for CRE and CRAB is suggested before transplant surgery after assessment of the local epidemiology. Careful consideration of the laboratory workload and involvement of antimicrobial stewardship teams before implementing the screening procedures or performing changes in PAP are warranted. High-quality prospective studies to assess the impact of PAP among CRE and CRAB carriers performing high-risk surgeries are advocated. Future well-designed clinical trials should assess the effectiveness of targeted PAP, including the monitoring of MDR-GNB colonization through postoperative cultures using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing clinical breakpoints.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Prospective Studies; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Monobactams; Fluoroquinolones
PubMed: 36566836
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.12.012 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Jul 2022Recurrent urinary tract infections are a common health problem. The only comprehensive synthesis on antibiotic prophylaxis in the last 15 years has been a... (Review)
Review
Recurrent urinary tract infections are a common health problem. The only comprehensive synthesis on antibiotic prophylaxis in the last 15 years has been a guideline-embedded meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published up to October 13, 2020, evaluating patients age ≥12 years with either ≥2 episodes of lower urinary tract infection (UTI) within 6 months or ≥3 in the past year. Placebo or antibiotics were allowed as comparators. Study quality was low. In the 11 placebo-controlled trials, the risk for developing UTI was 85% lower with prophylaxis in comparison with placebo (risk ratio [RR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08-0.29). In the 9 head-to-head trials, the efficacy of the antibiotic agents appeared similar: The pooled RR indicated no difference between nitrofurantoin and comparators (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.37), nor trimethoprim (+/- sulfamethoxazole; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.89-2.03) or norfloxacin and comparators (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70). Studies comparing intermittent (postcoital) with continuous strategies revealed intermittent application to be equally effective.
PubMed: 35899289
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofac327 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include anastomotic leakages and surgical site infections (SSI)s, which can lead to prolonged recovery with impaired long-term health. Compared with other abdominal procedures, colorectal resections have an increased risk of adverse events due to the physiological bacterial colonisation of the large bowel. Preoperative bowel preparation is used to remove faeces from the bowel lumen and reduce bacterial colonisation. This bowel preparation can be performed mechanically and/or with oral antibiotics. While mechanical bowel preparation alone is not beneficial, the benefits and harms of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is still unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and trial registries on 15 December 2021. In addition, we searched reference lists and contacted colorectal surgery organisations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants undergoing elective colorectal surgery comparing combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP+oAB) with either MBP alone, oAB alone, or no bowel preparation (nBP). We excluded studies in which no perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was given.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Pooled results were reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs analysing 5264 participants who underwent elective colorectal surgery. None of the included studies had a high risk of bias, but two-thirds of the included studies raised some concerns. This was mainly due to the lack of a predefined analysis plan or missing information about the randomisation process. Most included studies investigated both colon and rectal resections due to malignant and benign surgical indications. For MBP as well as oAB, the included studies used different regimens in terms of agent(s), dosage and timing. Data for all predefined outcomes could be extracted from the included studies. However, only four studies reported on side effects of bowel preparation, and none recorded the occurrence of adverse effects such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalances or the need to discontinue the intervention due to side effects. Seventeen trials compared MBP+oAB with sole MBP. The incidence of SSI could be reduced through MBP+oAB by 44% (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; 3917 participants from 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the risk of anastomotic leakage could be reduced by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99; 2356 participants from 10 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No difference between the two comparison groups was found with regard to mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.82; 639 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; 2013 participants from 6 studies, low-certainty of evidence) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.19, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.44; 621 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared MBP+oAB with sole oAB. No difference was demonstrated between the two treatment alternatives in terms of SSI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.21; 960 participants from 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.45; 960 participants from 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.50; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.33; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.1 respectively 0.2, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.08; data from 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (396 participants) compared MBP+oAB versus nBP. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of MBP+oAB on the incidence of SSI as well as mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23 respectively RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; low-certainty evidence), while no effect on the risk of anastomotic leakages (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.42; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.8 to 1; low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our results suggest that MBP+oAB is probably more effective than MBP alone in preventing postoperative complications. In particular, with respect to our primary outcomes, SSI and anastomotic leakage, a lower incidence was demonstrated using MBP+oAB. Whether oAB alone is actually equivalent to MBP+oAB, or leads to a reduction or increase in the risk of postoperative complications, cannot be clarified in light of the low- to very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, it remains unclear whether omitting preoperative bowel preparation leads to an increase in the risk of postoperative complications due to limited evidence. Additional RCTs, particularly on the comparisons of MBP+oAB versus oAB alone or nBP, are needed to assess the impact of oAB alone or nBP compared with MBP+oAB on postoperative complications and to improve confidence in the estimated effect. In addition, RCTs focusing on subgroups (e.g. in relation to type and location of colon resections) or reporting side effects of the intervention are needed to determine the most effective approach of preoperative bowel preparation.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anastomotic Leak; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Colorectal Surgery; Ileus; Surgical Wound Infection; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 36748942
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014909.pub2 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Nov 2021In areas where Lyme disease is endemic, bites from ticks are common, but no vaccine is currently available against Lyme disease for humans. Therefore, the feasibility of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In areas where Lyme disease is endemic, bites from ticks are common, but no vaccine is currently available against Lyme disease for humans. Therefore, the feasibility of using antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Lyme disease after a tick bite is worth further exploration. Previous meta-analyses lack sufficient power to demonstrate the efficacy of about antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease following a tick bite. In this study, we explored more precise evidence and attempted to identify and update optimum treatment strategies.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies until March 23, 2021. We included studies if the enrolled patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group within 72 h following a tick bite and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrolment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for data abstraction. Two authors (GZZ and XX) independently reviewed the abstracts and identified articles for detailed assessment. We used a random-effects model to calculate the pooled results and reported the 95% confidence interval (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for the rates of unfavorable events in patients who received intervention versus the control group. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021245002.
RESULTS
Six studies (3,766 individuals) were included. The pooled rate of unfavorable events in persons receiving treatment and the control group were 0.4% (95%CI: 0.1-1.1%) and 2.2% (95%CI: 1.6-3.0%), respectively. The pooled RR was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.22-0.66). Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled RR was 0.29 (95%CI: 0.14-0.60) in the single-use 200-mg doxycycline group; 0.28 (95%CI: 0.05-1.67) in a 10-day course group (Amoxicillin, Penicillin or tetracycline); and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.25-2.08) in a topical antibiotic treatment group (Azithromycin).
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the use of antibiotics for the prevention of Lyme disease, and reveals advantages of using single-dose; however, further confirmation is needed.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Doxycycline; Humans; Lyme Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tick Bites
PubMed: 34749665
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06837-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Infective 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... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dentistry; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Penicillins
PubMed: 35536541
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub5 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2024Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.
Topics: Humans; Dry Socket; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Surgical Wound Infection; Molar, Third; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 37612199
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2023.08.001