DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) would be included where available. Due to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis it was anticipated that few such trials would be found. Cohort and case-control studies were included where suitably matched control or comparison groups had been studied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion then assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the included study. RESULTS: Only one case controlled study met the inclusion criteria. It collected all the cases of endocarditis in the Netherlands over two years, finding a total of 24 people who developed endocarditis within 180 days of an invasive dental procedure, definitely requiring prophylaxis according to current guidelines, and who were at increased risk of endocarditis due to a pre-existing cardiac problem. This study included participants who died because of the endocarditis (using proxies). Controls attended local cardiology outpatient clinics for similar cardiac problems, had undergone an invasive dental procedure within the past 180 days, and were matched by age with the cases. No significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis could be seen. No data were found on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There remains no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis is either effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in people considered at risk who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. It is not clear whether the potential harms and costs of penicillin administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners need to discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.
DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) would be included where available. Due to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis it was anticipated that few such trials would be found. Cohort and case-control studies were included where suitably matched control or comparison groups had been studied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion then assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the included study. RESULTS: Only one case controlled study met the inclusion criteria. It collected all the cases of endocarditis in the Netherlands over two years, finding a total of 24 people who developed endocarditis within 180 days of an invasive dental procedure, definitely requiring prophylaxis according to current guidelines, and who were at increased risk of endocarditis due to a pre-existing cardiac problem. This study included participants who died because of the endocarditis (using proxies). Controls attended local cardiology outpatient clinics for similar cardiac problems, had undergone an invasive dental procedure within the past 180 days, and were matched by age with the cases. No significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis could be seen. No data were found on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There remains no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis is either effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in people considered at risk who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. It is not clear whether the potential harms and costs of penicillin administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners need to discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.
Authors: Walter Wilson; Kathryn A Taubert; Michael Gewitz; Peter B Lockhart; Larry M Baddour; Matthew Levison; Ann Bolger; Christopher H Cabell; Masato Takahashi; Robert S Baltimore; Jane W Newburger; Brian L Strom; Lloyd Y Tani; Michael Gerber; Robert O Bonow; Thomas Pallasch; Stanford T Shulman; Anne H Rowley; Jane C Burns; Patricia Ferrieri; Timothy Gardner; David Goff; David T Durack Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 29.690