Prendergast, Bernard D

Abstract Infective endocarditis (IE) is a relatively rare but life-threatening systemic infection, which remains associated with high morbidity and mortality. The epidemiology of IE has shifted to involve an increasing numbers of older patients with both cardiovascular and other types of prosthetic devices, multiple comorbid conditions often requiring invasive procedures, increasingly virulent pathogens, in particular Staphylococcus aureus, or that can harbour anti-microbial resistance, and an escalation of injection drug use in many areas of the world. In parallel, advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic options have led to complex strategies in patients’ management. Despite these epidemiologic shifts, clinical trials have been rare and most of the evidence guiding IE management derives from expert consensus or analysis of large registries. Because of this, a multi-disciplinary IE team-based approach has been recommended as the standard of care. The aim of this review is to explore the rationale for a multi-disciplinary team-based approach to the management of IE. This approach has proved to be potentially beneficial based on multiple investigations that have evaluated patient outcomes. In addition, implementation strategies, feasibility and options of the team approach have also been highlighted.

Abstract Background and Aims Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the guideline-based indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR), which has markedly increased with transcatheter approaches, suggesting possible increasing AS incidence. However, reported secular trends of AS incidence remain contradictory and lack quantitative Doppler echocardiographic ascertainment. Methods All adults residents in Olmsted County (MN, USA) diagnosed over 20 years (1997–2016) with incident severe AS (first diagnosis) based on quantitatively defined measures (aortic valve area ≤ 1 cm2, aortic valve area index ≤ 0.6 cm2/m2, mean gradient ≥ 40 mmHg, peak velocity ≥ 4 m/s, Doppler velocity index ≤ 0.25) were counted to define trends in incidence, presentation, treatment, and outcome. Results Incident severe AS was diagnosed in 1069 community residents. The incidence rate was 52.5 [49.4–55.8] per 100 000 patient-year, slightly higher in males vs. females and was almost unchanged after age and sex adjustment for the US population 53.8 [50.6–57.0] per 100 000 residents/year. Over 20 years, severe AS incidence remained stable (P = .2) but absolute burden of incident cases markedly increased (P = .0004) due to population growth. Incidence trend differed by sex, stable in men (incidence rate ratio 0.99, P = .7) but declining in women (incidence rate ratio 0.93, P = .02). Over the study, AS clinical characteristics remained remarkably stable and AVR performance grew and was more prompt (from 1.3 [0.1–3.3] years in 1997–2000 to 0.5 [0.2–2.1] years in 2013–16, P = .001) but undertreatment remained prominent (>40%). Early AVR was associated with survival benefit (adjusted hazard ratio 0.55 [0.42–0.71], P < .0001). Despite these improvements, overall mortality (3-month 8% and 3-year 36%), was swift, considerable and unabated (all P ≥ .4) throughout the study. Conclusions Over 20 years, the population incidence of severe AS remained stable with increased absolute case burden related to population growth. Despite stable severe AS presentation, AVR performance grew notably, but while declining, undertreatment remained substantial and disease lethality did not yet decline. These population-based findings have important implications for improving AS management pathways.

Objective Antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended for patients at increased risk of infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing specific invasive procedures (IPs) despite a lack of data supporting its use. Therefore, antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations ceased in the mid-2000s for all but those at high IE risk undergoing invasive dental procedures. We aimed to quantify any association between IPs and IE. Methods All 14 731 IE hospital admissions in England between April 2010 and March 2016 were identified from national admissions data, and medical records were searched for IP performed during the 15-month period before IE admission. We compared the incidence of IP during the 3 months immediately before IE admission (case period) with the incidence during the preceding 12 months (control period) to determine whether the odds of developing IE were increased in the 3 months after certain IP. Results The odds of IE were increased following permanent pacemaker and defibrillator implantation (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.85, p<0.001), extractions/surgical tooth removal (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.76, p=0.047), upper (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85, p<0.001) and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.04, p<0.001) and bone marrow biopsy (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.69, p=0.039). Using an alternative analysis, bronchoscopy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68, p=0.049) and blood transfusions/red cell/plasma exchange (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.35, p=0.012) were also associated with IE. Conclusions This study identifies a significant association between specific IPs (permanent pacemaker and defibrillator implantation, dental extraction, gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy) and subsequent IE that warrants re-evaluation of current antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations to prevent IE in high IE risk individuals.

Background Infective endocarditis is a heart infection with a first-year mortality rate of ≈ 30%. It has long been thought that infective endocarditis is causally associated with bloodstream seeding with oral bacteria in ≈ 40–45% of cases. This theorem led guideline committees to recommend that individuals at increased risk of infective endocarditis should receive antibiotic prophylaxis before undergoing invasive dental procedures. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has never been a clinical trial to prove the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and there is no good-quality evidence to link invasive dental procedures with infective endocarditis. Many contend that oral bacteria-related infective endocarditis is more likely to result from daily activities (e.g. tooth brushing, flossing and chewing), particularly in those with poor oral hygiene. Objective The aim of this study was to determine if there is a temporal association between invasive dental procedures and subsequent infective endocarditis, particularly in those at high risk of infective endocarditis. Design This was a self-controlled, case-crossover design study comparing the number of invasive dental procedures in the 3 months immediately before an infective endocarditis-related hospital admission with that in the preceding 12-month control period. Setting The study took place in the English NHS. Participants All individuals admitted to hospital with infective endocarditis between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2016 were eligible to participate. Interventions This was an observational study; therefore, there was no intervention. Main outcome measure The outcome measure was the number of invasive and non-invasive dental procedures in the months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. Data sources NHS Digital provided infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions data and dental procedure data were obtained from the NHS Business Services Authority. Results The incidence rate of invasive dental procedures decreased in the 3 months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission (incidence rate ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.58). Further analysis showed that this was due to loss of dental procedure data in the 2–3 weeks before any infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. Limitations We found that urgent hospital admissions were a common cause of incomplete courses of dental treatment and, because there is no requirement to record dental procedure data for incomplete courses, this resulted in a significant loss of dental procedure data in the 2–3 weeks before infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions. The data set was also reduced because of the NHS Business Services Authority’s 10-year data destruction policy, reducing the power of the study. The main consequence was a loss of dental procedure data in the critical 3-month case period of the case-crossover analysis (immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission), which did not occur in earlier control periods. Part of the decline in the rate of invasive dental procedures may also be the result of the onset of illness prior to infective endocarditis-related hospital admission, and part may be due to other undefined causes. Conclusions The loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission makes interpretation of the data difficult and raises uncertainty over any conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Future work We suggest repeating this study elsewhere using data that are unafflicted by loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11684416. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective The study aims were (1) to identify the community prevalence of moderate or greater mitral or tricuspid regurgitation (MR/TR), (2) to compare subjects identified by population screening with those with known valvular heart disease (VHD), (3) to understand the mechanisms of MR/TR and (4) to assess the rate of valve intervention and long-term outcome. Methods Adults aged ≥65 years registered at seven family medicine practices in Oxfordshire, UK were screened for inclusion (n=9504). Subjects with known VHD were identified from hospital records and those without VHD invited to undergo transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) within the Oxford Valvular Heart Disease Population Study (OxVALVE). The study population ultimately comprised 4755 subjects. The severity and aetiology of MR and TR were assessed by integrated comprehensive TTE assessment. Results The prevalence of moderate or greater MR and TR was 3.5% (95% CI 3.1 to 3.8) and 2.6% (95% CI 2.3 to 2.9), respectively. Primary MR was the most common aetiology (124/203, 61.1%). Almost half of cases were newly diagnosed by screening: MR 98/203 (48.3%), TR 69/155 (44.5%). Subjects diagnosed by screening were less symptomatic, more likely to have primary MR and had a lower incidence of aortic valve disease. Surgical intervention was undertaken in six subjects (2.4%) over a median follow-up of 64 months. Five-year survival was 79.8% in subjects with isolated MR, 84.8% in those with isolated TR, and 59.4% in those with combined MR and TR (p=0.0005). Conclusions Moderate or greater MR/TR is common, age-dependent and is underdiagnosed. Current rates of valve intervention are extremely low.