Cardiac murmurs: echocardiography in the assessment of patients requiring antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Background: Traditionally patients who indicate that they have a heart murmur or who indicate that they have had rheumatic fever are given antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment. This is commonly done without further assessment of the patient’s actual endocarditis risk. Echocardiography is a noninvasive method of assessing cardiac valve function and haemodynamics. Methods: Consecutive patients who were referred to a private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeon for dentoalveolar surgery and indicated that they had a cardiac problem and usually had antibiotic prophylaxis, were evaluated. Those with a clear indication for prophylaxis, for example had prosthetic heart valves or previous infective endocarditis, received antibiotic prophylaxis. Where there was uncertainty, they were referred for an echocardiogram, and if abnormal, a formal cardiology review. Results: Three hundred and seventy patients out of approximately 20 000 (1.85 per cent) indicated that they had a cardiac murmur and usually received antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment between 1 February 1997 and 1 February 2005. Two hundred and sixty-two (71 per cent) were female and 108 (29 per cent) were male; age range 0.7 to 98 years, average 37.6 years. Two hundred and seventy (72 per cent) had normal hearts with no indication for antibiotic prophylaxis. Of the 100 (28 per cent) patients with abnormal findings, they were on average older; 49.5 years, range 0.7 to 87 years. Of these, 50 (14 per cent) met current indications for antibiotic prophylaxis. Conclusion: Patients who present for dental treatment indicating that they require antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiac condition need to be fully evaluated. In this study only 50 of 370 patients (14 per cent) required antibiotic prophylaxis. The remaining 320 (86 per cent) would have no benefit but a risk of adverse reaction to the antibiotic.M. Ching, I. Straznicky and AN Gos

Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis: time to reconsider

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Some cardiac conditions require antibiotic prophylaxis for some types of dental treatment to reduce the risk of infective endocarditis (IE). All medical and dental practitioners are familiar with this practice but tend to use different regimens in apparently similar circumstances. Generally, the trend has been to prescribe antibiotics if in doubt. This review explores the evidence for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent IE: does it work and is it safe? The changing nature of IE, the role of bacteraemia of oral origin and the safety of antibiotics are also reviewed. Most developed countries have national guidelines and their points of similarity and difference are discussed. One can only agree with the authority who describes antibiotic guidelines for endocarditis as being ‘like the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are fragmentary, imperfect, capable of various interpretations and (mainly) missing!’ Clinical case-controlled studies show that the more widely antibiotics are used, the greater the risk of adverse reactions exceeding the risk of IE. However, the consensus is that antibiotic prophylaxis is mandatory for a small number of high-risk cardiac and high-risk dental procedures. There are a large number of low-risk cardiac and dental procedures in which the risk of adverse reactions to the antibiotics exceeds the risk of IE, where prophylaxis should not be provided. There is an intermediate group of cardiac and dental procedures for which careful individual evaluation should be made to determine whether IE or antibiotics pose the greater risk. These categories are presented. All medical and dental practitioners need to reconsider their approach in light of these current findings.J Singh, I Straznicky, M Avent and AN Gos

Justified Concern or Exaggerated Fear: The Risk of Anaphylaxis in Percutaneous Treatment of Cystic Echinococcosis—A Systematic Literature Review

Percutaneous treatment (PT) emerged in the mid-1980s as an alternative to surgery for selected cases of abdominal cystic echinococcosis (CE). Despite its efficacy and widespread use, the puncture of echinococcal cysts is still far from being universally accepted. One of the main reasons for this reluctance is the perceived risk of anaphylaxis linked to PTs. To quantify the risk of anaphylactic reactions and lethal anaphylaxis with PT, we systematically searched MEDLINE for publications on PT of CE and reviewed the PT-related complications. After including 124 publications published between 1980 and 2010, we collected a total number of 5943 PT procedures on 5517 hepatic and non-hepatic echinococcal cysts. Overall, two cases of lethal anaphylaxis and 99 reversible anaphylactic reactions were reported. Lethal anaphylaxis occurred in 0.03% of PT procedures, corresponding to 0.04% of treated cysts, while reversible allergic reactions complicated 1.7% of PTs, corresponding to 1.8% of treated echinococcal cysts. Analysis of the literature shows that lethal anaphylaxis related to percutaneous treatment of CE is an extremely rare event and is observed no more frequently than drug-related anaphylactic side effects

Patients with artificial joints: do they need antibiotic cover for dental treatment?

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.This study reviews whether patients with artificial joints need antibiotic cover for dental treatment. Generally in Australia the practice has developed of giving most patients with artificial joints antibiotic prophylaxis for a wide range of dental procedures. This is partly on anecdotal grounds, partly historical and partly for legal concerns. It has been encouraged by some guidelines. Scientifically, the risk and the benefit of each step in the process needs to be analysed. This review shows that the risk of an artificial joint becoming infected from a bacteraemia of oral origin is exceedingly low whereas the risk of an adverse reaction to the antibiotic prophylaxis is higher than the risk of infection. If all patients with artificial joints receive antibiotic prophylaxis then more will die from anaphylaxis than develop infections. Factors which balance the risk benefit are if the patient is seriously immunocompromised, if the joint prosthesis is failing or chronically inflamed and if the dental procedures, such as from extractions and deep periodontal scaling, produce high level bacteraemias. Recommendations to rationalize antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with artificial joints are presented.JF Scott, D Morgan, M Avent, S Graves and AN Gos