Search

The American Heart Association sponsored the first iteration of a scientific statement that addressed all aspects of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection in 2010. Major advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of these infections have occurred since then, necessitating a scientific statement update. An 11-member writing group was identified and included recognized experts in cardiology and infectious diseases, with a career focus on cardiovascular infections. The group initially met in October 2022 to develop a scientific statement that was drafted with front-line clinicians in mind and focused on providing updated clinical information to enhance outcomes of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection. The current scientific statement highlights recent advances in prevention, diagnosis, and management, and how they may be incorporated in the complex care of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection.

There have been no published prospective randomized clinical trials that have: (1) established an association between invasive dental and nondental invasive procedures and risk of infective endocarditis; or (2) defined the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis administered in the setting of invasive procedures in the prevention of infective endocarditis in high-risk patients. Moreover, previous observational studies that examined the association of nondental invasive procedures with the risk of infective endocarditis have been limited by inadequate sample size. They have typically focused on a few potential at-risk surgical and nonsurgical invasive procedures. However, recent investigations from Sweden and England that used nationwide databases and demonstrated an association between nondental invasive procedures, and the subsequent development of infective endocarditis (in particular, in high-risk patients with infective endocarditis) prompted the development of the current science advisory.

Background: The American Heart Association has sponsored both guidelines and scientific statements that address the diagnosis, management, and prevention of infective endocarditis. As a result of the unprecedented and increasing incidence of infective endocarditis cases among people who inject drugs, the American Heart Association sponsored this original scientific statement. It provides a more in-depth focus on the management of infective endocarditis among this unique population than what has been provided in prior American Heart Association infective endocarditis-related documents., Methods: A writing group was named and consisted of recognized experts in the fields of infectious diseases, cardiology, addiction medicine, and cardiovascular surgery in October 2021. A literature search was conducted in Embase on November 19, 2021, and multiple terms were used, with 1345 English-language articles identified after removal of duplicates., Conclusions: Management of infective endocarditis in people who inject drugs is complex and requires a unique approach in all aspects of care. Clinicians must appreciate that it requires involvement of a variety of specialists and that consultation by addiction-trained clinicians is as important as that of more traditional members of the endocarditis team to improve infective endocarditis outcomes. Preventive measures are critical in people who inject drugs and are cured of an initial bout of infective endocarditis because they remain at extremely high risk for subsequent bouts of infective endocarditis, regardless of whether injection drug use is continued.

Background: In 2007, the American Heart Association published updated evidence-based guidelines on the recommended use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent viridans group streptococcal (VGS) infective endocarditis (IE) in cardiac patients undergoing invasive procedures. The 2007 guidelines significantly scaled back the underlying conditions for which antibiotic prophylaxis was recommended, leaving only 4 categories thought to confer the highest risk of adverse outcome. The purpose of this update is to examine interval evidence of the acceptance and impact of the 2007 recommendations on VGS IE and, if needed, to make revisions based on this evidence., Methods and Results: A writing group was formed consisting of experts in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis including members of the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, in addition to the American Heart Association. MEDLINE database searches were done for English language articles on compliance with the recommendations in the 2007 guidelines and the frequency of and morbidity or mortality from VGS IE after publication of the 2007 guidelines. Overall, there was good general awareness of the 2007 guidelines but variable compliance with recommendations. There was no convincing evidence that VGS IE frequency, morbidity, or mortality has increased since 2007., Conclusions: On the basis of a review of the available evidence, there are no recommended changes to the 2007 VGS IE prevention guidelines. We continue to recommend VGS IE prophylaxis only for categories of patients at highest risk for adverse outcome while emphasizing the critical role of good oral health and regular access to dental care for all. Randomized controlled studies to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective against VGS IE are needed to further refine recommendations.

Background: A patent foramen ovale (PFO) may permit arterial embolization of thrombi that accumulate on the leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices in the right-sided cardiac chambers. We sought to determine whether a PFO increases the risk of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with endocardial leads., Methods and Results: We retrospectively evaluated all patients who had endocardial leads implanted between January 1, 2000, and October 25, 2010, at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Echocardiography was used to establish definite PFO and non-PFO cohorts. The primary end point of stroke/TIA consistent with a cardioembolic etiology and the secondary end point of mortality during postimplantation follow-up were compared in PFO versus non-PFO patients with the use of Cox proportional hazards models. We analyzed 6075 patients (364 with PFO) followed for a mean 4.7 ± 3.1 years. The primary end point of stroke/TIA was met in 30/364 (8.2%) PFO versus 117/5711 (2.0%) non-PFO patients (hazard ratio, 3.49; 95% confidence interval, 2.33-5.25; P<0.0001). The association of PFO with stroke/TIA remained significant after multivariable adjustment for age, sex, history of stroke/TIA, atrial fibrillation, and baseline aspirin/warfarin use (hazard ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.19-4.96; P<0.0001). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between PFO and non-PFO patients (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.07; P=0.25)., Conclusions: In patients with endocardial leads, the presence of a PFO on routine echocardiography is associated with a substantially increased risk of embolic stroke/TIA. This finding suggests a role of screening for PFOs in patients who require cardiac implantable electronic devices; if a PFO is detected, PFO closure, anticoagulation, or nonvascular lead placement may be considered.

Background: The American Heart Association published updated guidelines for infective endocarditis (IE) prevention in 2007 that markedly restricted the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in certain at-risk patients undergoing dental and other invasive procedures. The incidence of IE caused by viridans group streptococci (VGS) in the United States after publication of the 2007 American Heart Association guidelines has not been reported., Methods and Results: We performed a population-based review of all definite or possible cases of VGS-IE using the Rochester Epidemiology Project of Olmsted County, Minnesota. Patient demographics and microbiological data were collected for all VGS-IE cases diagnosed from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2010. We also examined the Nationwide Inpatient Sample hospital discharge database to determine the number of VGS-IE cases included between 1999 and 2009. We identified 22 cases with VGS-IE in Olmsted County over the 12-year study period. Rates of incidence (per 100 000 person-years) during time intervals of 1999-2002, 2003-2006, and 2007-2010 were 3.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-5.17), 2.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-4.10), and 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-1.64), respectively (P=0.061 from Poisson regression). The number of hospital discharges with a VGS-IE diagnosis in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database during 1999-2002, 2003-2006, and 2007-2009 ranged between 15 318 to 15 938, 16 214 to 17 433, and 14 728 to 15 479, respectively., Conclusions: On the basis of data complete through 2010, there has been no perceivable increase in the incidence of VGS-IE in Olmsted County, Minnesota, since the publication of the 2007 American Heart Association endocarditis prevention guidelines.