Search

Background: Approximately 10% of the US population self-reports a penicillin allergy history or are labeled as penicillin allergic. However, from 90% through 99% of these patients are not allergic on formal evaluation., Case Description: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic receive broader-spectrum and sometimes less-effective antibiotics, thereby contributing to increased treatment failures, antibiotic resistance, and adverse drug reactions. Self-reported penicillin allergy can be eliminated or classified as low-, medium-, or high-risk after a careful review of patient history. This allows these patients to be delabeled; that is, having any reference to their penicillin allergy history or of having an allergy to penicillin eliminated from their health records., Practical Implications: Oral health care professionals are ideally placed to partner in both antibiotic stewardship interventions by means of recognizing pervasive mislabeling and aiding in the process of delabeling., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Blumenthal reports having a grant from Thermo Fisher related to penicillin allergy diagnostics. None of the remaining authors reported any disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dentists face the expectations of orthopedic surgeons and patients with prosthetic joints to provide antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to reduce the risk of late periprosthetic joint infections (LPJIs), despite the lack of evidence associating IDPs with LPJIs, lack of evidence of AP efficacy, risk of AP-related adverse reactions, and potential for promoting antibiotic resistance. The authors aimed to identify any association between IDPs and LPJIs and whether AP reduces LPJI incidence after IDPs., Method: The authors performed a case-crossover analysis comparing IDP incidence in the 3 months immediately before LPJI hospital admission (case period) with the preceding 12-month control period for all LPJI hospital admissions with commercial or Medicare supplemental or Medicaid health care coverage and linked dental and prescription benefits data., Results: Overall, 2,344 LPJI hospital admissions with dental and prescription records (n = 1,160 commercial or Medicare supplemental and n = 1,184 Medicaid) were identified. Patients underwent 4,614 dental procedures in the 15 months before LPJI admission, including 1,821 IDPs (of which 18.3% had AP). Our analysis identified no significant positive association between IDPs and subsequent development of LPJIs and no significant effect of AP in reducing LPJIs., Conclusions: The authors identified no significant association between IDPs and LPJIs and no effect of AP cover of IDPs in reducing the risk of LPJIs., Practical Implications: In the absence of benefit, the continued use of AP poses an unnecessary risk to patients from adverse drug reactions and to society from the potential of AP to promote development of antibiotic resistance. Dental AP use to prevent LPJIs should, therefore, cease., (Copyright © 2023 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about factors that influence dentists' decision making concerning antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prescribing. The objective of this study was to determine factors that influence dentists' AP prescribing habits in patients at risk of developing infective endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections., Methods: A questionnaire was administered to 3,584 dentist members of The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. In addition to descriptive statistics, ordinal regression models were used to determine the factors most likely to impact dentists' decisions to prescribe AP., Results: Overall, 2,169 (61%) dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Resesarch Network responded. Responders' decisions to prescribe antibiotics were influenced primarily by official guidelines, scientific literature, and physician or medical specialist opinion. Regarding potential risks, the greatest level of concern was for the development of infective endocarditis or prosthetic joint infections. Although litigation was deemed problematic, more than 90% of responders indicated a strong concern for the best course of action for the patient's health. Dentists also indicated a high level of concern about the potential for generating antibiotic-resistant bacteria with AP use and increased risk of adverse drug reactions., Conclusions: Dentists' AP decision making seems most influenced by official guidelines, scientific literature, and advice from a physician or medical specialist., Practical Implications: These results suggest that one of the most effective means for promoting concordance of dentists clinical practice with the scientific basis for AP is to emphasize the importance and clarity of American Heart Association and American Dental Association recommendations and antimicrobial stewardship regarding prevention of infective endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections., (Copyright © 2022 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2007, the American Heart Association recommended that antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) be restricted to those at high risk of developing complications due to infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing invasive dental procedures. The authors aimed to estimate the appropriateness of AP prescribing according to type of dental procedure performed in patients at high risk, moderate risk, or low or unknown risk of developing IE complications., Methods: Eighty patients at high risk, 40 patients at moderate risk, and 40 patients at low or unknown risk of developing IE complications were randomly selected from patients with linked dental care, health care, and prescription benefits data in the IBM MarketScan Databases, one of the largest US health care convenience data samples. Two clinicians independently analyzed prescription and dental procedure data to determine whether AP prescribing was likely, possible, or unlikely for each dental visit., Results: In patients at high risk of developing IE complications, 64% were unlikely to have received AP for invasive dental procedures, and in 32 of 80 high-risk patients (40%) there was no evidence of AP for any dental visit. When AP was prescribed, several different strategies were used to provide coverage for multiple dental visits, including multiday courses, multidose prescriptions, and refills, which sometimes led to an oversupply of antibiotics., Conclusions: AP prescribing practices were inconsistent, did not always meet the highest antibiotic stewardship standards, and made retrospective evaluation difficult. For those at high risk of developing IE complications, there appears to be a concerning level of underprescribing of AP for invasive dental procedures., Practical Implications: Some dentists might be failing to fully comply with American Heart Association recommendations to provide AP cover for all invasive dental procedures in those at high risk of developing IE complications., (Copyright © 2020 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about antibiotic prescribing practices of dentists. The objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of dentists' beliefs and behaviors regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures., Methods: A multidisciplinary team developed and disseminated a questionnaire to 3,584 dentist members of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network., Results: Overall, 2,169 network dentists (61%) responded. Respondents saw patients at risk of developing infective endocarditis (IE) and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) at least once per week (35% and 65%, respectively). Although 78% of dentists agreed that the 2007 American Heart Association guidelines for the prevention of IE are well-defined and clear, only 49% agreed concerning PJI guidelines. Differences for the IE and PJI patient populations also existed for questions regarding dentists' understanding of the specific patient groups at risk, the recommended antibiotic regimens, and the need to consult with a patient's cardiologist or orthopedic surgeon., Conclusions: The survey results indicate that decision making regarding the use of AP occurs frequently among dentists. Moreover, dentists reported uncertainty about the appropriate use of AP as defined by both IE and PJI guidelines, which may have resulted in a lack of concordance between dentists' beliefs and their practice behaviors., Practical Implications: The results reported by the authors highlight the need to develop better educational programs that address antimicrobial stewardship in AP for patients at risk of developing IE and PJI and target the dental profession., (Copyright © 2020 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the potential effect of dental treatment before cardiac valve surgery (CVS) or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation on morbidity and mortality., Types of Studies Reviewed: The authors included relevant studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, published from 1998 through 2019 and involving adults who received dental treatment before CVS or LVAD implantation. The authors assessed bias by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and evidence certainty by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors used a meta-analysis with a random-effects model to estimate dichotomous and continuous outcomes, expressed as relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference., Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria for CVS but none for LVAD implantation. Very low certainty in the evidence suggested uncertainty as to whether health outcomes for patients undergoing dental treatment before CVS differed from those who did not. Postsurgical outcomes included all-cause mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 1.91), infective endocarditis (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.51 to 3.35), postsurgical infection (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33), and length of stay in the hospital (weighted mean difference, 2.9; 95% CI, -2.3 to 8.1)., Conclusions and Practical Implications: From the available evidence, it is unclear whether postoperative outcomes differ in patients receiving dental treatment before CVS compared with outcomes in those who do not. Dentists and medical care professionals should collaborate on an appropriate course of action for each patient, weighing any potentially relevant care considerations., (Copyright © 2019 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this statement is to update the recommendations by the American Heart Association (AHA) for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections and their management, which were last published in 2003., Methods and Results: The AHA commissioned this scientific statement to educate clinicians about CIED infections, provide explicit recommendations for the care of patients with suspected or established CIED infections and highlight areas of needed research. The recommendations in this statement reflect analyses of relevant literature, to include recent advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors, microbiology, management and prevention of CIED infections., Conclusion: There are no scientific data to support the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for dental or other invasive procedures., Clinical Implications: The concerns about life-threatening drug reactions, the development of resistant strains of bacterial pathogens, medicolegal issues and cost to the health care system are, thus, avoided.

Background: The purpose of this statement is to update the recommendations by the American Heart Association (AHA) for the prevention of infective endocarditis, which were last published in 1997., Methods: and, Results: A writing group appointed by the AHA for their expertise in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The writing group reviewed input from national and international experts on IE. The recommendations in this document reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related bacteremia and IE; in vitro susceptibility data of the most common microorganisms, which cause IE; results of prophylactic studies in animal models of experimental endocarditis; and retrospective and prospective studies of prevention of IE. MEDLINE database searches from 1950 through 2006 were done for English language articles using the following search terms: endocarditis, infective endocarditis, prophylaxis, prevention, antibiotic, antimicrobial, pathogens, organisms, dental, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, streptococcus, enterococcus, staphylococcus, respiratory, dental surgery, pathogenesis, vaccine, immunization and bacteremia. The reference lists of the identified articles were also searched. The writing group also searched the AHA online library. The American College of Cardiology/AHA classification of recommendations and levels of evidence for practice guidelines were used. The article subsequently was reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee., Conclusions: The major changes in the updated recommendations include the following. (1) The committee concluded that only an extremely small number of cases of IE might be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures even if such prophylactic therapy were 100 percent effective. (2) IE prophylaxis for dental procedures should be recommended only for patients with underlying cardiac conditions associated with the highest risk of adverse outcome from IE. (3) For patients with these underlying cardiac conditions, prophylaxis is recommended for all dental procedures that involve manipulation of gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa. (4) Prophylaxis is not recommended based solely on an increased lifetime risk of acquisition of IE. (5) Administration of antibiotics solely to prevent endocarditis is not recommended for patients who undergo a genitourinary or gastrointestinal tract procedure. These changes are intended to define more clearly when IE prophylaxis is or is not recommended and to provide more uniform and consistent global recommendations.

Background: The purpose of this statement is to update the recommendations by the American Heart Association (AHA) for the prevention of infective endocarditis, which were last published in 1997., Methods and Results: A writing group appointed by the AHA for their expertise in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) with liaison members representing the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The writing group reviewed input from national and international experts on IE. The recommendations in this document reflect analyses of relevant literature regarding procedure-related bacteremia and IE; in vitro susceptibility data of the most common microorganisms, which cause IE; results of prophylactic studies in animal models of experimental endocarditis; and retrospective and prospective studies of prevention of IE. MEDLINE database searches from 1950 through 2006 were done for English language articles using the following search terms: endocarditis, infective endocarditis, prophylaxis, prevention, antibiotic, antimicrobial, pathogens, organisms, dental, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, streptococcus, enterococcus, staphylococcus, respiratory, dental surgery, pathogenesis, vaccine, immunization and bacteremia. The reference lists of the identified articles were also searched. The writing group also searched the AHA online library. The American College of Cardiology/AHA classification of recommendations and levels of evidence for practice guidelines were used. The article subsequently was reviewed by outside experts not affiliated with the writing group and by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee., Conclusions: The major changes in the updated recommendations include the following. (1) The committee concluded that only an extremely small number of cases of IE might be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures even if such prophylactic therapy were 100 percent effective. (2) IE prophylaxis for dental procedures should be recommended only for patients with underlying cardiac conditions associated with the highest risk of adverse outcome from IE. (3) For patients with these underlying cardiac conditions, prophylaxis is recommended for all dental procedures that involve manipulation of gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa. (4) Prophylaxis is not recommended based solely on an increased lifetime risk of acquisition of IE. (5) Administration of antibiotics solely to prevent endocarditis is not recommended for patients who undergo a genitourinary or gastrointestinal tract procedure. These changes are intended to define more clearly when IE prophylaxis is or is not recommended and to provide more uniform and consistent global recommendations.