The evidence base for the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental practice

INTRODUCTION

People with various medical conditions and devices are suggested candidates for receiving antibiotic prophylaxis before undergoing dental procedures. This practice is controversial, however, owing to the lack of proof of efficacy. The authors conducted a qualitative, systematic review to determine the level of evidence for this practice and whether antibiotic prophylaxis prevents distant site infections in these patients.

METHODS

The authors selected eight groups of patients with specific medical conditions and devices who often are given antibiotic prophylaxis before undergoing invasive dental procedures. The conditions and devices were cardiac-native heart valve disease, prosthetic heart valves and pacemakers; hip, knee and shoulder prosthetic joints; renal dialysis shunts; cerebrospinal fluid shunts; vascular grafts; immunosuppression secondary to cancer and cancer chemotherapy; systemic lupus erythematosus; and insulin-dependent (type 1) diabetes mellitus. The authors thoroughly searched the literature for the years 1966 through 2005 for references indicating some level of support for this practice and graded each publication on the basis of level of evidence.

RESULTS

The authors found formal recommendations in favor of antibiotic prophylaxis for only three of the eight medical conditions: native heart disease, prosthetic heart valves and prosthetic joints. They found no prospective randomized clinical trials and only one clinical study of antibiotic prophylaxis. Only one systematic review and two case series provided weak, if any, support for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cardiac conditions. The authors found little or no evidence to support this practice or to demonstrate that it prevents distant site infections for any of these eight groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive, scientific basis exists for the use of prophylactic antibiotics before dental procedures for these eight groups of patients.

Management of peritonitis in children receiving chronic peritoneal dialysis

Bacterial peritonitis is a major threat to long-term peritoneal membrane function in pediatric patients receiving chronic peritoneal dialysis (CPD). This review summarizes the demographics, risk factors, and current recommendations regarding diagnostic procedures, management, and prevention of peritonitis in children. Albeit decreasing in incidence, bacterial peritonitis remains a major cause of technique failure in children with endstage renal disease receiving CPD. The use of standardized diagnostic procedures, efficacious antibacterial treatment, and objective response criteria are crucial in improving the outcome of this complication. Current guidelines recommend combining a first- and third-generation cephalosporin for empiric therapy in uncomplicated cases. The initial use of a glycopeptide/third-generation cephalosporin combination should be restricted to patients with risk factors for severe disease, as defined by clinical presentation, young age (<2 years), and recent infection with a methicillin resistant micro-organism. Several risk factors for primary or relapsing peritonitis have been identified, some of which are amenable to preventive measures. These relate to catheter design and implantation technique, connection methodology, early catheter removal in refractory or relapsing peritonitis, and eradication of Staphylococcus aureus from the catheter exit site and/or nasal reservoirs in patients and their caregivers.

Infections in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis

Considering experience acquired in the past years, it seems as though physicians have reached a plateau in the frequency of peritonitis. A peritonitis rate of 1 every 2 patient years may be acceptable. Further reduction of this peritonitis rate will require inordinately large efforts on all fronts. One will have to consider what are the acceptable costs and risks of peritonitis in patients on peritoneal dialysis. New developments in catheter technology, improved connections, better understanding of patient selection and training programs, improved diagnostic and therapeutic methods in the management of peritonitis, and understanding of the infectious and immune processes are eagerly awaited developments.