Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:34:48.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New guidelines from the American Heart Association on prevention of infective endocarditis: a shift in paradigms, albeit raising new questions relative to those with congenitally malformed hearts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2008

Gianfranco Butera
Gianfranco Butera*
Affiliation:
Pediatric Cardiology and GUCH Unit, Policlinico San Donato IRCCS, Italy
*
Correspondence to: Dr Gianfranco Butera MD, PhD, Policlinico San Donato IRCCS, Via Morandi 30-20097 San Donato Milanese –Italy. Tel: +39252774328; Fax: +39252774459; E-mail: gianfranco.butera@grupposandonato.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Letter to the Editor
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 18 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 551
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest your commentsReference Baker1 regarding the recent guidelines provided by the American Heart Association for the prevention of infective endocarditis.Reference Wilson, Taubert and Gewitz2 In this statement, experts representing the American Heart Association extensively analysed the literature on procedure-related bacteraemia and infective endocarditis, results of prophylactic studies in animals, and retrospective and prospective studies of the prevention of infective endocarditis. The committee stated that the risk of bacteraemia from routine daily activities is much higher than that resulting from a dental procedure. They pointed out that the absolute risk of infective endocarditis from a dental procedure is exceedingly rare, so the number of cases that could be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis is similarly small. They also concluded that prophylaxis against infective endocarditis for dental procedures is reasonable only for patients with cardiac conditions associated with known higher risks. The committee, however, reported only data relative to antibiotic prophylaxis, and did not consider data relative to prophylaxis in the setting of percutaneous closure of defects in patients with congenitally malformed hearts. In particular, they did not consider that closure of a persistently patent arterial duct may provide an alternative means of preventing bacterial endoarteritis.Reference Sadiq, Latif and Ur-Rehman3, Reference Ozkoleki, Ates, Uslu and Akcar4 Such percutaneous closure has proven to be safe and effective.Reference Alwi, Sievert, Qureshi, Wilson and Hijazi5, Reference Krishna Kumar, Sievert, Qureshi, Wilson and Hijazi6 Transcatheter occlusion also has a significant advantage over antibiotic prophylaxis, since it could nullify over a lifetime the risk produced by bacteraemia due not only to dental procedures but also from routine daily activities. If antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated in such patients, would prophylaxis produced by percutaneous closure be worthwhile? Or, if antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated in patients with a persistently patent arterial duct, would percutaneous closure itself be contra-indicated? I am anxious to learn the opinion of the Editor-in-Chief regarding this issue?

References

1. Baker, E. A paradigm shift. Cardiol Young 2008; 18: 241–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Wilson, W, Taubert, KA, Gewitz, M, et al. Prevention of infective endocarditis. Guidelines from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2007; 116: 1736–1754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Sadiq, M, Latif, F, Ur-Rehman, A. Analysis of infective endarteritis in patent ductus arteriosus. Am J Cardiol 2004; 93: 513–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Ozkoleki, M, Ates, M, Uslu, N, Akcar, M. Pulmonary and aortic valve endarteritis in an adult patient with silent ductus arteriosus. Jpn Heart J 2004; 45: 1057–1061.Google Scholar
5. Alwi, M. PDA occlusion with the Amplatzer devices. In: Percutaneous interventions for Congenital Heart Disease. Sievert, H, Qureshi, SA, Wilson, N, Hijazi, ZM (eds). Informa Healthcare, London, 2007, pp 377–384.Google Scholar
6. Krishna Kumar, R. Patent ductus arteriosus: coil occlusion. In: Percutaneous interventions for Congenital Heart Disease. Sievert, H, Qureshi, SA, Wilson, N, Hijazi, ZM (eds). Informa Healthcare, London, 2007, pp 385–402.Google Scholar