Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Dental Procedures

Abstract

The possibility that bacteremia from the mouth could cause infective endocarditis (IE) was first suggested >100 years ago, and it was later reinforced by others who targeted the viridans group streptococci from poor oral hygiene and dental extractions.1–3 These observations, along with the advent of antibiotics, eventually led to the first guidelines from the American Heart Association (AHA) in 1955. Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) became the primary focus for prevention of IE and a standard of care for countries around the world. Controversy concerning efficacy and safety issues has existed for >30 years, and there has been a progressive reduction in the patient populations and the procedures suggested for AP since that time. Of concern, and in spite of a decreasing emphasis on AP for cardiac patients, upwards of 25 noncardiac patient populations are recommended for AP by some clinicians out of concern for systemic infections that might originate from dental procedures (eg, prosthetic joints).4 Article see p 60 Significant differences in recommendations from experts in the United States, United Kingdom, and other countries over the years highlight the lack of convincing data to either support or reject this practice. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom issued new recommendations in 2006, which took the bold step of eliminating AP altogether.5 Current (2007) AHA guidelines narrow the focus to only 4 cardiac groups at higher risk for a bad outcome from IE but who represent ≈10% of all people at risk for IE.6 The AHA-defined moderate-risk groups represent ≈90% of people at risk for IE, all of whom were recommended for AP before 2007. There are, therefore, no …