Baddour, Larry M.

Background: In March 2008, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended stopping antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for those at risk of infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing dental procedures in the United Kingdom, citing a lack of evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We have performed a new economic evaluation of AP on the basis of contemporary estimates of efficacy, adverse events, and resource implications. Methods: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was used. Health service costs and benefits (measured as quality-adjusted life-years) were estimated. Rates of IE before and after the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance were available to estimate prophylactic efficacy. AP adverse event rates were derived from recent UK data, and resource implications were based on English Hospital Episode Statistics. Results: AP was less costly and more effective than no AP for all patients at risk of IE. The results are sensitive to AP efficacy, but efficacy would have to be substantially lower for AP not to be cost-effective. AP was even more cost-effective in patients at high risk of IE. Only a marginal reduction in annual IE rates (1.44 cases in high-risk and 33 cases in all at-risk patients) would be required for AP to be considered cost-effective at £20 000 ($26 600) per quality-adjusted life-year. Annual cost savings of £5.5 to £8.2 million ($7.3–$10.9 million) and health gains >2600 quality-adjusted life-years could be achieved from reinstating AP in England. Conclusions: AP is cost-effective for preventing IE, particularly in those at high risk. These findings support the cost-effectiveness of guidelines recommending AP use in high-risk individuals.

Background— Lead-related or valve-related endocarditis can complicate cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in patients with both CIED and prosthetic valves. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction for CIED infection in patients with prosthetic valves. Methods and Results— We retrospectively screened 794 transvenous lead extraction procedures, between September 1, 2001 and August 31, 2012, at Mayo Clinic to identify patients with prosthetic valves who underwent lead extraction for infection. Demographic, clinical, and follow-up characteristics were analyzed. In total, 51 patients (6%) met the study inclusion criteria, of whom 20 had pocket infection and 31 had lead-related or valve-related, or both, endocarditis or bloodstream infection (mean age, 67 [18] years). Staphylococcal species were the most common pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus in 20 cases (39%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci in 19 cases (37%). Overall, 127 transvenous leads (median lead age, 52 months) were extracted. Of these leads, 123 (97%) were removed completely. The in-hospital mortality rate was 9.8%; no deaths were attributable to the extraction procedure. Ninety-five percent of patients who survived had no evidence of recurrent device-related or valve-related infection. Conclusions— Transvenous lead extraction seems safe and curative in patients with CIED infection and prosthetic valves. Cure of infection can be achieved in the majority of patients with complete CIED removal and antimicrobial therapy and without valve surgery.

Abstract Background. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) as a complication of routine genitourinary (GU) procedures in patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to study the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis administered prior to these procedures. Methods. We conducted a prospective, single-center, case-control study between December 1, 2001 and May 31, 2006. Case patients were hospitalized with total hip or knee PJI. Control subjects underwent a THA or TKA and were hospitalized during the same period on the same orthopedic floor without a PJI. Data regarding demographic features and potential risk factors were collected. The outcome measure was the odds ratio (OR) of PJI after GU procedures performed within 2 years of admission. Results. A total of 339 case patients and 339 control subjects were enrolled in the study. Of these, 52 cases (15%) and 55 controls (16%) had undergone a GU procedure in the preceding 2 years. There was no increased risk of PJI for patients undergoing a GU procedure with or without antibiotic prophylaxis (adjusted OR [aOR] = 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2–4.5, P = .95 and aOR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.6–1.7, P = .99, respectively). Results were similar in a subset of patients with a joint age less than 6 months, less than 1 year, or greater than 1 year. Conclusions. Genitourinary procedures were not risk factors for subsequent PJI. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis before GU procedures did not decrease the risk of subsequent PJI in our study.