Prevention of bacterial endocarditis
Recommendations by the American Heart Association
| Authors |
Dajani A, Taubert K, Wilson W, Bolger A, Bayer A, Ferrieri
P, Gewitz M, et al. |
| Source |
JAMA. 277:1794-1801. June 11, 1997. |
| Institutions |
American Heart Association; American Dental Association;
Infectious Diseases Society of America; American Academy of Pediatrics;
American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. |
| Support |
American Heart Association. |
Background
Bacterial endocarditis is a potentially life-threatening condition. It
results from infection of susceptible (usually previously abnormal) cardiac
structures resulting from bacteremia. A number of diagnostic and therapeutic
procedures can cause transient bacteremia. Antibiotic prophylaxis at the
time of these procedures may thus be able to prevent endocarditis. Although
this approach is plausible and has been validated in some animal models,
controlled clinical trials in humans have not been performed and are unlikely
to be undertaken. In the absence of such trials, recommendations such as
those presented here must be based on extensive review of the available
evidence. This paper is an update of the AHA committee's 1990 recommendations.
Approach
The presumed benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis depends on the cardiac
abnormality for which prophylaxis is being considered and the procedure
causing bacteremia. Certain cardiac conditions are more susceptible to
endocarditis than others; furthermore, established endocarditis is more
dangerous in certain settings (such as prosthetic valves) than others.
Both the risk of bacteremia and the likely organisms vary according to
the procedure being performed; some organisms are more likely to cause
endocarditis than others.
As a result, the decision whether or not to prophylax and the choice
of antibiotics will depend both on the cardiac abnormality and on the procedure
(as well as on certain other patient-specific factors).
Cardiac conditions
Cardiac conditions are classified into high, moderate and negligible
risk. The latter category is felt not to require prophylaxis. The principal
differences between the high and moderate risk categories lie in the antibiotic
regimens recommended for GI and GU procedures, and in whether or not prophylaxis
is needed for certain lower-risk procedures.
-
High risk
These conditions are:
-
All prosthetic heart valves (including bioprostheses and homografts).
-
Any history of previous bacterial endocarditis.
-
Complex cyanotic congenital heart disease and surgically constructed systemic
pulmonary shunts.
In the article text is a more detailed description of the issue of
mitral valve prolapse, including the significance of valve morphology and
audible clicks. The only patients with MVP who are not recommended for
prophylaxis are those patients with isolated prolapse, normal appearing
leaflets, no doppler evidence of regurgitation and no murmurs (with maneuvers).
Patients with MVP and only a systolic click represent a controversial subset
and warrant either prophylaxis or a very vigilant search for intermittent
regurgitation (doppler and auscultation with maneuvers). The importance
of MVP as an etiology for endocarditis in the pediatric age group is stressed.
See text for more details.
|
Principal recommendations
Procedures requiring prophylaxis
| Procedures |
Prophylaxis recommendations |
| Dental and oral procedures |
Dental procedures with bleeding:
extractions
cleaning
periodontal procedures
dental implant placement
endodontic surgery (root canal)
initial placement of orthodontic bands
intraligamentary local anesthesia
|
Prophylaxis recommended
In addition, consider antiseptic rinse immediately prior to procedure |
| Dental procedures unlikely to cause bleeding:
Restorative dentistry (including cavity filling)
Nonintraligamentary local anesthesia
Intracanal endodontic treatment post-placement
Suture removal
Placement and adjustment of orthodontic and prosthodontic devices
|
Not recommended
If unanticipated bleeding, consider antibiotic prophylaxis within 2
hours |
| Respiratory tract |
|
Surgical operations involving respiratory mucosa, including tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy
Bronchoscopy with rigid bronchoscope
|
Recommended |
|
Flexible bronchoscopy, with or without biopsy
|
High risk patients: Optional
Others: not recommended |
|
Endotracheal intubation
Tympanostomy tube insertion
|
Not recommended |
| Gastrointestinal tract |
|
Esophageal sclerotherapy and dilatation
ERCP in the presence of obstruction and biliary tract surgery
Surgery involving the intestinal mucosa
|
High risk: recommended
Moderate risk: optional |
|
Endoscopy, with or without biopsy
Transesophageal echocardiography
|
High risk: optional
Others: not recommended |
| Genito-urinary tract |
|
Prostate surgery
Urethral dilatation
Cystoscopy
In the presence of infection:
Urethral catheterization
Uterine D&C; therapeutic abortion; sterilization; insertion or removal
of IUD
|
Recommended
In case of infection, culture guided therapy (until sterilization, when
possible) |
|
Vaginal hysterectomy
Vaginal delivery
|
High risk: optional
Others: not recommended |
|
Caesarean section
In uninfected tissue:
Urethral catheterization
Uterine D&C; therapeutic abortion; sterilization; insertion or removal
of IUD
|
Not recommended |
Antibiotic regimens
In the following, prophylactic regimens for adults are listed. For dosages
in the pediatric population, please refer to the article.
| Procedure and situation |
Prophylactic regimen recommended |
| Dental, oral, respiratory tract
and esophageal procedures |
| Standard regimen |
Amoxicillin 2.0 g orally one hour before procedure |
| Unable to take orally |
Ampicillin 2.0 g IM or IV, within 30 minutes before procedure |
| Penicillin allergic |
Clindamycin 600 mg or
Azithromycin 500 mg or
Clarithromycin 500 mg or
for patients who have not had an immediate local or systemic reaction
to a pencillin (urticaria, angioedema or anaphylaxis) and who can tolerate
first generation cephalosporins: Cephalexin or Cefadroxil 2.0 g
orally, 1 h before procedure |
| Pencillin allergic and unable to take orally |
Clindamycin 600 mg IV or
Cefazolin 1.0 g IM or IV (for patients who can tolerate, see above)
within 30 minutes before procedure |
| Genitourinary and gastrointestinal
(not esophageal) procedures |
| High risk patients |
Ampicillin 2.0 g IV or IM plus gentamycin 1.5 mg/kg (up to 120 mg)
within 30 min of starting procedure
followed by ampicillin 1.0 g IV/IM or amoxicillin 1 g orally 6 hours
later |
| High risk patients allergic to ampicillin |
Vancomycin 1.0 g IV over 1-2 h plus gentamycin 1.5 mg/kg IV/IM (up
to 120 mg) to be completed within 30 min of starting procedure |
| Moderate risk patients |
Amoxicillin 2.0 g orally 1 h before procedure or ampicillin 2.0 g IM/IV
within 30 min of starting procedure |
| Moderate risk patients allergic to ampicillin |
Vancomycin 1.0 g IV over 1-2 hr, to be completed within 30 min of starting
procedure |
It should be noted that the current recommendations do not include an
erythromycin-based regimen for oral prophylaxis, because of problems with
pharmacokinetics and gastro-intestinal tolerability. The authors note,
however, that patients who previously used erythromycin for endocarditis
prophylaxis and who tolerated it at the recommended doses can continue
to do so.
Specific situations
Patients already taking antibiotics for another reason (particularly pencillin
for rheumatic fever prophylaxis) should be given an agent from a different
class for endocarditis prophylaxis.
Patients at risk for endocarditis who undergo surgical procedures involving
infected tissue should have antibiotic prophylaxis directed at the most
likely pathogens.
Patients at risk for endocarditis who undergo open heart surgery should
have prophylaxis directed primarily at staphylococci (with an agent appropriate
to the hospital's antibiotic susceptibility pattern). Cardiac transplant
recipients should probably be considered at moderate risk for endocarditis
and receive prophylaxis accordingly.
|
|
Comment
As in the past, these recommendations are based not on controlled clinical
trials (which are unlikely to be carried out) but on best-available evidence
and consensus. Nevertheless, they are important both because of the strength
of the indirect evidence upon which they are based and for medico-legal
reasons (they will rapidly become standard-of-care).
The lower dose of amoxicillin and the lack of a second dose 6 hours
post-procedure for oral regimens is a substantial change from the previous
recommendations. The lack of an erythromycin regimen for oral procedures
is another substantial change.
The exact significance of "optional" prophylaxis in some of the situations
noted above is not entirely clear. Prudence will probably dictate recommending
prophylaxis in most of them. As always, these recommendations are meant
to be interpreted with the individual patient in mind. The article text
contains much interesting and valuable material that was not summarized
here; I strongly recommend reading it at least once.
August 1, 1997
References
References
related to this article from the NLM's PubMed
database.
|
Reader Comments
October 23, 1997
Letters
to the editor concerning this article appeared in the October 15 issue
of JAMA. These letters concern clarification of the need for prophylaxis
with dermatologic procedures, traumatic lacerations and mitral valve prolapse
without an audible murmur.
Date: Sat, 17 Feb
From: "Dr. Chew" <matthew@pop.jaring.my>
In the recommendations regarding urological procedures, it is not clear
whether changing of long term urinary catheter requires antibiotic prophylaxis.
We know that prolonged catheterization increases the chances of bacteriuria
and thus, should we consider changing catheters the same as catheterizing
an infected bladder?
In a recent issue of Arch.
Int. Med, there is a study on whether changing urinary catheter in
the elderly who are on catheter for long term results in bacteraemia. It
seems that not the usual gram negative bacteria are found but coagulase
negative Staphylococcus, and the authors think that the risk of bacteraemia
is low. However, they suggested that antibiotic prophylaxis needs to be
seriously considered if prostheses like hip prostheses are present. The
authors also identified mucosal breaks as a risk factor for bacteraemia.
Another point is that replacing erythromycin with a newer macrolide
may not be necessary unless the organisms present in the community are
well known to be resistant to erythromycin. Switching to a newer macrolide
increases the cost of antibiotic prophylaxis and this may not be a good
idea in the developing world where infective endocarditis is fairly common.
The Archives study you mention looked at 480 blood cultures drawn
during 120 catheter changes in 39 patients with indwelling urinary catheters.
The authors found an incidence of bacteremia resulting from the procedure
in about 4% of catheter changes. None of these bacteremias led to clinical
incidents, but we do not know how many patients had valvular heart disease
or prostheses. Interestingly, a significant number of the bacteremias were
caused by coagulase negative staphylococci, which were not cultured from
the urine, but which were often cultured from the catheter itself.
It would certainly seem prudent to treat indwelling catheter changes
as equivalent to catheterizing infected urine, particularly in the presence
of a prosthetic heart valve. Whether the antibiotic regimen chosen should
reflect the possibility of coagulase negative staphylococcal bacteremia
is unclear to me.
As noted in the summary, the reason erythromycin is no longer recommended
is because of GI intolerance and erratic bioavailability, not because of
susceptibility patterns. Thus, if it is preferable from an economic standpoint,
it can still be used. --mj
Submit a comment |