Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for endocarditis: Letter to the Editor (2)
  1. David R Ramsdale1,
  2. Nick D Palmer1
  1. 1The Cardiothoracic Centre, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
    Dr D R Ramsdale
    The Cardiothoracic Centre, Liverpool L37 2EZ, UK; david.ramsdale{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

To the Editor: The editorial by Ashrafian and Bogle1 suggests that the authors have little clinical experience in the management of patients with infective endocarditis (IE). The body of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons in Europe, North America and the UK would disagree that the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy guidelines are important or “a step in the right direction”, and almost certainly the guidelines will be disregarded by the rest of the world as an eccentricity not based on any evidence whatsoever. Without doubt, they are out of line with the views of doctors who have cared for patients with IE over the past 50 years and of those who continue to have this responsibility. The Joint Formulary Committee of the British National Formulary and our dental colleagues would do well to take note of the advice from specialist cardiologists from Europe and the US regarding antibiotic prophylaxis (ABP) for those at risk of IE and remember the devastating consequences that often occur in patients with IE. Within our own centre, we have recently seen two patients who developed IE after dental treatment who, despite requesting ABP from their dentist, were told that based on the new British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy guidelines, ABP was not necessary and hence not administered.

Although a large randomised controlled clinical trial of ABP before dental treatment in those patients considered to be at high or moderate risk of IE because of their cardiac structural abnormality might help quantify the benefit or risks of ABP, we think it would prove difficult to obtain ethical approval and even the patients’ consent for such a study. With regard to the cost effectiveness and safety of oral amoxicillin, we believe it is very cost effective at £1.50 ($2.90, €2.20) per 3 g sachet, set against the high cost of a prolonged inpatient stay for parenterally administered antibiotics, the high morbidity and mortality, and the need for surgery in those individuals with the serious destructive cardiac and extracardiac complications of IE. Although anaphylaxis may occur as an allergic response to penicillin, this is extremely rare and not a reason for the omission of ABP.

Patients who place their trust in health professionals to do everything in their power to protect them deserve a sensible cautious approach from their doctor to diminish the risk of developing a life-threatening illness with high morbidity and mortality. Dentists look to cardiologists and not to microbiologists for advice about the need for ABP in patients with cardiac abnormalities that place them at increased risk of IE. Not to offer ABP to those patients who cardiologists consider to be at risk of IE is a disservice and would be considered medicolegally negligent in most countries in the Western world. Dentists will find it difficult to obtain the support of the patient’s cardiologist when disaster strikes their patient as a result of omitting ABP when this has been recommended.


View Abstract

Linked Articles

  • Editorial
    Michael Burch
  • Miscellanea
    BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Cardiovascular Society