-
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Jun 2017The use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. In recent years, guidelines to cardiologists and dentists have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. In recent years, guidelines to cardiologists and dentists have advised restriction of AP to high-risk groups (in Europe and the USA) or against its use at all (in the UK). The objective of this systematic review was to appraise the evidence for use of AP for prevention of bacteraemia or IE in patients undergoing dental procedures.
METHODS
We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science. We assessed the methodological characteristics of included studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for trials. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of studies, assessed the methodology of included studies and extracted the data.
RESULTS
We identified 178 eligible studies, of which 36 were included in the review. This included 10 time-trend studies, 5 observational studies and 21 trials. All trials identified used bacteraemia as an endpoint rather than IE. One time-trend study suggests that total AP restriction may be associated with a rising incidence of IE, while data on the consequences of relative AP restriction are conflicting. Meta-analysis of trials indicates that AP is effective in reducing the incidence of bacteraemia (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57, p<0.01), but case-control studies suggest this may not translate to a statistically significant protective effect against IE in patients at low risk of disease.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base for the use of AP is limited, heterogeneous and the methodological quality of many studies is poor. Postprocedural bacteraemia is not a good surrogate endpoint for IE. Given the logistical challenges of a randomised trial, high-quality case-control studies would help to evaluate the role of dental procedures in causing IE and the efficacy of AP in its prevention.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Endocarditis; Humans
PubMed: 28213367
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-309102 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2018The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of... (Review)
Review
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of antibiotics has led to widespread antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of multi drug resistant strains of bacteria. The main aim of this work was to determine whether there is a genuine need for antibiotic prophylaxis in two common dental procedures; dental implants and tooth extractions. Electronic searches were conducted across databases such as Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the UK National Health Service, Centre for reviews, Science Direct, PubMed and the British Dental Journal to identify clinical trials of either dental implants or tooth extractions, whereby the independent variable was systemic prophylactic antibiotics used as part of treatment in order to prevent postoperative complications such as implant failure or infection. Primary outcomes of interest were implant failure, and postoperative infections which include systemic bacteraemia and localised infections. The secondary outcome of interest was adverse events due to antibiotics. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the risk of bias, extract outcomes of interest and to identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Seven randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the final review comprising = 1368 patients requiring either tooth extraction(s) or dental implant(s). No statistically significant evidence was found to support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing the risk of implant failure ( = 0.09, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.16⁻1.14) or post-operative complications ( = 0.47, RR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.34⁻1.65) under normal conditions. Approximately 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery need to receive antibiotics in order to prevent one implant failure from occurring. There is little conclusive evidence to suggest the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for third molar extractive surgery in healthy young adults. There was no statistical evidence for adverse events experienced for antibiotics vs. placebo. Based on our analysis, even if financially feasible, clinicians must carefully consider the appropriate use of antibiotics in dental implants and extraction procedures due to the risk of allergic reactions and the development of microbial drug resistance.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Endocarditis; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Tooth Extraction; Young Adult
PubMed: 30513764
DOI: 10.3390/medicina54060095 -
Swiss Medical Weekly Feb 2021The Swiss societies of Infectious Diseases, Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiology and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Group of Switzerland present the current update on...
The Swiss societies of Infectious Diseases, Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiology and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Group of Switzerland present the current update on infective endocarditis prophylaxis in a joint initiative. The major focus of the revised recommendations is a comprehensive prevention campaign for all patients at risk for infective endocarditis. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended only for individuals at high risk. Within this high-risk group there is a ranking order, and the conditions are presented accordingly. Antibiotic prophylaxis is no longer recommended for patients with unrepaired ventricular septal defects and patent ductus arteriosus. Recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis are categorized in dental and non-dental interventions.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Child; Endocarditis; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Switzerland
PubMed: 33705562
DOI: 10.4414/smw.2021.20473 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Sep 2023The efficacy of continuous antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing urinary tract infection (UTI) in infants with grade III, IV, or V vesicoureteral reflux is controversial. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of continuous antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing urinary tract infection (UTI) in infants with grade III, IV, or V vesicoureteral reflux is controversial.
METHODS
In this investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label trial performed in 39 European centers, we randomly assigned infants 1 to 5 months of age with grade III, IV, or V vesicoureteral reflux and no previous UTIs to receive continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (prophylaxis group) or no treatment (untreated group) for 24 months. The primary outcome was the occurrence of the first UTI during the trial period. Secondary outcomes included new kidney scarring and the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at 24 months.
RESULTS
A total of 292 participants underwent randomization (146 per group). Approximately 75% of the participants were male; the median age was 3 months, and 235 participants (80.5%) had grade IV or V vesicoureteral reflux. In the intention-to-treat analysis, a first UTI occurred in 31 participants (21.2%) in the prophylaxis group and in 52 participants (35.6%) in the untreated group (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.86; P = 0.008); the number needed to treat for 2 years to prevent one UTI was 7 children (95% CI, 4 to 29). Among untreated participants, 64.4% had no UTI during the trial. The incidence of new kidney scars and the estimated GFR at 24 months did not differ substantially between the two groups. Pseudomonas species, other non- organisms, and antibiotic resistance were more common in UTI isolates obtained from participants in the prophylaxis group than in isolates obtained from those in the untreated group. Serious adverse events were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
In infants with grade III, IV, or V vesicoureteral reflux and no previous UTIs, continuous antibiotic prophylaxis provided a small but significant benefit in preventing a first UTI despite an increased occurrence of non- organisms and antibiotic resistance. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and others; PREDICT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02021006; EudraCT number, 2013-000309-21.).
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Glomerulonephritis; Intention to Treat Analysis; Vesico-Ureteral Reflux; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Urinary Tract Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial
PubMed: 37702442
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2300161 -
Surgical Infections Feb 2013
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 23461695
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2013.9999 -
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 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Jan 2015Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a frequent cause of morbidity following surgical procedures. Gram-positive cocci, particularly staphylococci, cause many of these... (Review)
Review
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a frequent cause of morbidity following surgical procedures. Gram-positive cocci, particularly staphylococci, cause many of these infections, although Gram-negative organisms are also frequently involved. The risk of developing a SSI is associated with a number of factors, including aspects of the operative procedure itself, such as wound classification, and patient-related variables, such as preexisting medical conditions. Antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) plays an important role in reducing SSIs, especially if patient-related risk factors for SSIs are present. The main components of antimicrobial prophylaxis are: timing, selection of drugs and patients, duration and costs. Compliance with these generally accepted preventive principles may lead to overall decreases in the incidence of these infections. Ideally the administration of the prophylactic agent should start within 30 minutes from the surgical incision. The duration of the AP should not exceed 24 hours for the majority of surgical procedures. The shortest effective period of prophylactic antimicrobial administration is not known and studies have demonstrated that post-surgical antibiotic administration is unnecessary. Furthermore, there were no proven benefits in multiple dose regimens when compared to single-dose regimens. The choice of an appropriate prophylactic antimicrobial agent should be based primarily on efficacy and safety. Broad spectrum antibiotics should be avoided due to the risk of promoting bacterial resistance. Cephalosporins are the most commonly used antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis; specifically, cefazolin or cefuroxime are mainly used in the prophylaxis regimens for cardio-thoracic surgery, vascular surgery, hip or knee arthroplasty surgery, neurosurgical procedures and gynecologic and obstetric procedures. A review of the prophylactic regimens regarding the main surgical procedures is presented.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 24561611
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Feb 2022The growing resistance of bacteria to antimicrobial medicines is a global issue and a direct threat to human health. Despite this, antibiotic prophylaxis is often still... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The growing resistance of bacteria to antimicrobial medicines is a global issue and a direct threat to human health. Despite this, antibiotic prophylaxis is often still routinely used in dental implant surgery to prevent bacterial infection and early implant failure, despite unclear benefits. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to formulate clear clinical guidelines and therefore there is a need for well-designed, large-scale randomized controlled trials to determine the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis.
PURPOSE
To compare the effect of a presurgical antibiotic regimen with an identical placebo regimen in healthy or relatively healthy patients receiving dental implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The 474 patients participating in the study were recruited from seven clinics in southern Sweden. We randomized the patients into a test and a placebo group; the study was conducted double-blinded. Preoperatively, the test group received 2 g of amoxicillin and the control group, identical placebo tablets. The primary outcome was implant failure; secondary outcomes were postoperative infections and adverse events. Patients were evaluated at two follow-ups: at 7-14 days and at 3-6 months.
RESULTS
Postoperative evaluations of the antibiotic (n = 238) and the placebo (n = 235) groups noted implant failures (antibiotic group: six patients, 2.5% and placebo group: seven patients, 3.0%) and postoperative infections (antibiotic group: two patients, 0.8% and placebo group: five patients, 2.1%). No patient reported any adverse events. Between-group differences in implant failures and postoperative infections were nonsignificant.
CONCLUSION
Antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with implant placement is likely of small benefit and should thus be avoided in most cases, especially given the unabated growth in antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT03412305.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 35075765
DOI: 10.1111/cid.13068 -
Medicine Jul 2017The aim of the study was to assess the effect of timing of preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) on surgical site infection (SSI) and compare the different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of the study was to assess the effect of timing of preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) on surgical site infection (SSI) and compare the different timing intervals.The benefit of routine use of SAP prior to surgery has long been recognized. However, the optimal timing has not been defined. For the purpose of developing recommendations for the World Health Organization guideline for SSI prevention, a systematic review and meta-analysis of all relevant evidence was conducted.Major medical databases were searched from 1990 to 2016. The primary outcome was SSI after preoperative-SAP comparing different timing intervals. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled for each comparison with a random effects model.Fourteen papers with 54,552 patients were included in this review. In a quantitative analysis, there was no significant difference when SAP was administered 120-60 minutes prior to incision compared to administration 60-0 minutes prior to incision. Studies investigating different timing intervals within the last 60 minutes time frame reported contradictive results. The risk of SSI almost doubled when SAP was administered after first incision (OR:1.89; 95%CI:[1.05-3.40]) and was 5 times higher when administered more than 120 minutes prior to incision (OR5.26; 95%CI:[3.29-8.39]).Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis more than 120 minutes before incision or after incision is associated a higher risk of surgical site infections than administration less than 120 minutes before incision. Within this 120-minute time frame prior to incision, no differential effects could be identified. The broadly accepted recommendation to administer prophylaxis within a 60-minute time frame prior to incision could not be substantiated.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection; Time Factors
PubMed: 28723736
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006903 -
Anesthesiology Dec 2021
Review
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Critical Care; Cross Infection; Hand Hygiene; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Mortality
PubMed: 34731244
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004017