![procedures is not recommended, aseptic measures during the inser-
tion and manipulation of venous catheters and during any invasive
procedures, including in outpatients, are mandatory to reduce the
rate of this healthcare-associated IE.52
In summary, these guidelines propose continuing to limit antibiot-
ic prophylaxis to patients at high risk of IE undergoing the
highest-risk dental procedures. They highlight the importance of
hygiene measures, in particular oral and cutaneous hygiene. Epi-
demiological changes are marked by an increase in IE due to
staphylococcus and of healthcare-associated IE, thereby high-
lighting the importance of non-specific infection control mea-
sures.51,53
This should concern not only high-risk patients, but
should also be part of routine care in all patients since IE occur-
ring in patients without previously known heart disease now ac-
counts for a substantial and increasing incidence. This means
that although antibiotic prophylaxis should be restricted to the
highest-risk patients, preventive measures should be maintained
or extended to all patients with cardiac disease.
Although this section of the guidelines on IE prophylaxis is
based on weak evidence, they have been strengthened recently
by epidemiological surveys, most of which did not show an in-
creased incidence of IE due to oral streptococci.33 – 35
Their ap-
plication by patients should follow a shared decision-making
process. Future challenges are to gain a better understanding
of the mechanisms associated with valve infection, the
adaptation of prophylaxis to the ongoing epidemiological
changes and the performance of specific prospective surveys
on the incidence and characteristics of IE.
4. The ‘Endocarditis Team’
IE is a disease that needs a collaborative approach for the following
reasons:
† First, IE is not a single disease, but rather may present with very
different aspects depending on the first organ involved, the
underlying cardiac disease (if any), the microorganism involved,
the presence or absence of complications and the patient’s char-
acteristics.8
No single practitioner will be able to manage and
treat a patient in whom the main clinical symptoms might be car-
diac, rheumatological, infectious, neurological or other.
† Second, a very high level of expertise is needed from practitioners
from several specialties, including cardiologists, cardiac surgeons,
ID specialists, microbiologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, ex-
perts in CHD and others. Echocardiography is known to have a
major importance in the diagnosis and management of IE. How-
ever, other imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance im-
aging (MRI), multislice computed tomography (MSCT), and
nuclear imaging, have also been shown to be useful for diagnosis,
follow-up and decision making in patients with IE.10
Including all of
these specialists in the team is becoming increasingly important.
† Finally, about half of the patients with IE undergo surgery during
the hospital course.54
Early discussion with the surgical team is
important and is considered mandatory in all cases of compli-
cated IE [i.e. endocarditis with heart failure (HF), abscess or em-
bolic or neurological complications].
Therefore the presence of an Endocarditis Team is crucial. This
multidisciplinary approach has already been shown to be useful
in the management of valve disease11
(the ‘Heart Valve Clinic’),
particularly in the selection of patients for transcatheter aortic valve
implantation procedures (‘Heart Team’ approach).55
In the field of
IE, the team approach adopted in France, including standardized
medical therapy, surgical indications following guideline recommen-
dations and 1 year of close follow-up, has been shown to significant-
ly reduce the 1-year mortality, from 18.5% to 8.2%.12
Other authors
have recently reported similar results.56
Taking these reports to-
gether, such a team approach has been recommended recently as
class IB in the 2014 American Heart Association/American College
of Cardiology guideline for the management of patients with valvular
heart disease.25
The present Task Force on the management of IE of the ESC
strongly supports the management of patients with IE in refer-
ence centres by a specialized team (the ‘Endocarditis Team’).
The main characteristics of the Endocarditis Team and the
referring indications are summarized in Tables 8 and 9.
Table 8 Characteristics of the ‘Endocarditis Team’
When to refer a patient with IE to an ‘Endocarditis Team’
in a reference centre
1. Patients with complicated IE (i.e. endocarditis with HF, abscess, or
embolic or neurological complication or CHD), should be referred
early and managed in a reference centre with immediate surgical
facilities.
2. Patients with non-complicated IE can be initially managed in a non-
reference centre, but with regular communication with the reference
centre,consultations with the multidisciplinary‘EndocarditisTeam’,and,
when needed,with external visit to the reference centre.
Characteristics of the reference centre
1. Immediate access to diagnostic procedures should be possible,
includingTTE,TOE,multislice CT,MRI,and nuclear imaging.
2. Immediate access to cardiac surgery should be possible during the
early stage of the disease, particularly in case of complicated IE (HF,
abscess,large vegetation,neurological,and embolic complications).
3. Several specialists should be present on site (the ‘Endocarditis Team’),
including at least cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, anaesthesiologists, ID
specialists, microbiologists and, when available, specialists in valve
diseases, CHD, pacemaker extraction, echocardiography and other
cardiac imaging techniques, neurologists, and facilities for
neurosurgery and interventional neuroradiology .
Role of the ‘Endocarditis Team’
1. The ‘Endocarditis Team’ should have meetings on a regular basis in
order to discuss cases, take surgical decisions, and define the type of
follow-up.
2. The ‘Endocarditis Team’ chooses the type, duration, and mode of
follow up of antibiotic therapy, according to a standardized protocol,
following the current guidelines.
3. The ‘EndocarditisTeam’ should participate in national or international
registries, publicly report the mortality and morbidity of their centre,
and be involved in a quality improvement programme, as well as in a
patient education programme.
4. The follow-up should be organized on an outpatient visit basis at a
frequency depending on the patient’s clinical status (ideally at 1, 3,
6,and 12 months after hospital discharge,since the majority of events
occur during this period57
).
CHD ¼ Congenital heart disease; CT ¼ computed tomography; HF ¼ heart
failure; ID ¼ Infectious disease; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; MRI ¼ magnetic
resonance imaging; TOE ¼ transoesophageal echocardiography; TTE ¼
transthoracic echocardiography.
ESC Guidelines 3083
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-9-320.jpg)
![5. Diagnosis
5.1 Clinical features
The diverse nature and evolving epidemiological profile of IE ensure
that it remains a diagnostic challenge. The clinical history of IE is
highly variable according to the causative microorganism, the pres-
ence or absence of pre-existing cardiac disease, the presence or ab-
sence of prosthetic valves or cardiac devices and the mode of
presentation. Thus IE should be suspected in a variety of very differ-
ent clinical situations. It may present as an acute, rapidly progressive
infection, but also as a subacute or chronic disease with low-grade
fever and non-specific symptoms that may mislead or confuse initial
assessment. Patients may therefore present to a variety of specialists
who may consider a range of alternative diagnoses, including chronic
infection; rheumatological, neurological and autoimmune diseases;
or malignancy. The early involvement of a cardiologist and an ID
specialist to guide management is highly recommended.
Up to 90% of patients present with fever, often associated with sys-
temic symptoms of chills, poor appetite and weight loss. Heart mur-
murs are found in up to 85% of patients. Up to 25% of patients have
embolic complications at the time of diagnosis. Therefore IE has to be
suspected in any patient presenting with fever and embolic phenom-
ena. Classic signs may still be seen in the developing world in subacute
forms of IE, although peripheral stigmata of IE are increasingly uncom-
mon elsewhere, as patients generally present at an early stage of the
disease. However, vascular and immunological phenomena such as
splinter haemorrhages, Roth spots and glomerulonephritis remain
common. Emboli to the brain, lung or spleen occur in 30% of patients
and are often the presenting feature.58
In a febrile patient, diagnostic
suspicion may be strengthened by laboratory signs of infection, such
as elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation
rate (ESR), leucocytosis, anaemia and microscopic haematuria.
However, these signs lack specificity and have not been integrated
into current diagnostic criteria. Atypical presentation is common in
elderly or immunocompromised patients,59
in whom fever is less
common than in younger individuals. A high index of suspicion and
low threshold for investigation are therefore essential in these and
other high-risk groups, such as those with CHD or prosthetic valves,
to exclude IE or avoid delays in diagnosis.
5.2 Laboratory findings
In addition to specialized microbiological and imaging investigations,
a number of laboratory investigations and biomarkers have been
evaluated in sepsis/sepsis syndromes and endocarditis. The large
number of proposed potential biomarkers reflects the complex
pathophysiology of the disease process, involving pro- and anti-
inflammatory processes, humoral and cellular reactions and both
circulatory and end-organ abnormalities.60
However, owing to their
poor positive predictive value for the diagnosis of sepsis and lack of
specificity for endocarditis, these biomarkers have been excluded
from being major diagnostic criteria and are only used to facilitate
risk stratification.
Sepsis severity may be indicated by the demonstration of a number
of laboratory investigations, including the degree of leucocytosis/leu-
copoenia, the number of immature white cell forms, concentrations
of CRP and procalcitonin, ESR and markers of end-organ dysfunction
(lactataemia, elevated bilirubin, thrombocytopaenia and changes in
serum creatinine concentration); however, none are diagnostic for
IE.61
Further, certain laboratory investigations are used in surgical
scoring systems relevant to risk stratification in patients with IE, in-
cluding bilirubin, creatinine and platelet count [Sequential Organ Fail-
ure Assessment (SOFA) score] and creatinine clearance [European
System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II]. Final-
ly, the pattern of increase in inflammatory mediators or immune
complexes may support, but not prove, the diagnosis of IE, including
the finding of hypocomplementaemia in the presence of elevated
antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody in endocarditis-associated vas-
culitis or, where lead infection is suspected clinically, the laboratory
finding of a normal procalcitonin and white cell count in the presence
of significantly elevated CRP and/or ESR.62
5.3 Imaging techniques
Imaging, particularly echocardiography, plays a key role in both the
diagnosis and management of IE. Echocardiography is also useful
for the prognostic assessment of patients with IE, for its follow-up
under therapy and during and after surgery.63
Echocardiography is
particularly useful for initial assessment of the embolic risk and in
decision making in IE. Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE)
plays a major role both before and during surgery (intraoperative
echocardiography). However, the evaluation of patients with IE
is no longer limited to conventional echocardiography, but
should include several other imaging techniques such as MSCT,
MRI, 18
F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography
(PET)/computed tomography (CT) or other functional imaging
modalities.10
5.3.1 Echocardiography
Echocardiography, either transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) or
TOE, is the technique of choice for the diagnosis of IE, and plays a
Table 9 Recommendations for referring patients to
the reference centre
Recommendations Classa
Levelb
Ref.c
Patients with complicated IE should be
evaluated and managed at an early stage in
a reference centre, with immediate
surgical facilities and the presence of a
multidisciplinary ‘Endocarditis Team’,
including an ID specialist, a microbiologist,
a cardiologist, imaging specialists, a cardiac
surgeon and, if needed, a specialist in CHD
IIa B 12,56
For patients with uncomplicated IE
managed in a non-reference centre, early
and regular communication with the
reference centre and, when needed, visits
to the reference centre should be made
IIa B 12,56
CHD ¼ congenital heart disease; ID ¼ infectious disease; IE ¼ infective
endocarditis.
a
Class of recommendation.
b
Level of evidence.
c
Reference(s) supporting recommendations.
ESC Guidelines3084
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-10-320.jpg)
![visualization of the intracranial vascular tree and carries a lower con-
trast burden and risk of permanent neurological damage than con-
ventional digital subtraction angiography, with a sensitivity of 90%
and specificity of 86%.81
Where subarachnoid and/or intraparench-
ymal haemorrhage is detected, other vascular imaging (i.e. angiog-
raphy) is required to diagnose or exclude a mycotic aneurysm if
not detected on CT.
Contrast-enhanced MSCT has a high sensitivity and specificity
for the diagnosis of splenic and other abscesses; however, the differ-
entiation with infarction can be challenging. MSCT angiography pro-
vides a rapid and comprehensive exploration of the systemic arterial
bed. Detailed multiplanar and 3D contrast-enhanced angiographic
reconstructions allow vascular mapping with identification and char-
acterization of peripheral vascular complications of IE and their
follow-up.82
5.3.3 Magnetic resonance imaging
Given its higher sensitivity than CT, MRI increases the likelihood of
detecting cerebral consequences of IE. Different studies including
systematic cerebral MRI during acute IE have consistently reported
frequent lesions, in 60–80% of patients.83
Regardless of neurological
symptoms, most abnormalities are ischaemic lesions (in 50–80% of
patients), with more frequent small ischaemic lesions than larger
territorial infarcts.84
Other lesions are found in ,10% of patients
and are parenchymal or subarachnoidal haemorrhages, abscesses
or mycotic aneurysms.83 – 86
Systematic cerebral MRI has an impact on the diagnosis of IE
since it adds one minor Duke criterion87
in patients who have
cerebral lesions and no neurological symptoms. In one study, find-
ings of cerebral MRI upgraded the diagnosis of IE in 25% of patients
presenting initially with non-definite IE, thereby leading to earlier
diagnosis.85
Cerebral microbleeds are detected only when using gradient
echo T2* sequences and are found in 50–60% of patients.85
Micro-
bleeds represent small areas of haemosiderin deposits and are
considered as an indicator of small vessel disease. The lack of
concordance between ischaemic lesions and microbleeds and the
differences in their predictive factors suggest that microbleeds are
not of embolic origin.86,88
Therefore, although IE and the presence
of microbleeds are strongly linked, microbleeds should not be
considered as a minor criterion in the Duke classification.87
Cerebral MRI is, in the majority of cases, abnormal in IE patients
with neurological symptoms.89
It has a higher sensitivity than CT in
the diagnosis of the culprit lesion, in particular with regards to
stroke, transient ischaemic attack and encephalopathy. MRI may
also detect additional cerebral lesions that are not related to clinical
symptoms. Cerebral MRI has no impact on the diagnosis of IE in pa-
tients with neurological symptoms, as they already have one minor
Duke criterion, but MRI may impact the therapeutic strategy, par-
ticularly the timing of surgery.89
In patients without neurological
symptoms, MRI shows cerebral lesions in at least half of the patients,
most often ischaemic lesions.90
Systematic abdominal MRI detects
lesions in one of three patients evaluated, most often affecting the
spleen.91
Ischaemic lesions are most common, followed by ab-
scesses and haemorrhagic lesions. Abdominal MRI findings have
no incremental impact on the diagnosis of IE when taking into ac-
count the findings of cerebral MRI.
To summarize, cerebral MRI allows for a better lesion character-
ization in patients with IE and neurological symptoms, whereas its
impact on IE diagnosis is marked in patients with non-definite IE
and without neurological symptoms.
5.3.4 Nuclear imaging
With the introduction of hybrid equipment for both conventional
nuclear medicine [e.g. single-photon emission CT (SPECT)/CT]
and PET (i.e. PET/CT), nuclear molecular techniques are evolving
as an important supplementary method for patients with sus-
pected IE and diagnostic difficulties. SPECT/CT imaging relies on
the use of autologous radiolabelled leucocytes (111
In-oxine or
99m
Tc-hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime) that accumulate in a
time-dependent fashion in late images versus earlier images,92
whereas PET/CT is generally performed using a single acquisition
time point (generally at 1 h) after administration of 18
F-FDG, which
is actively incorporated in vivo by activated leucocytes, monocyte-
macrophages and CD4+
T-lymphocytes accumulating at the sites
of infection.
Several reports have shown promising results for radiolabelled
white blood cell (WBC) SPECT/CT and 18
F-FDG PET/CT imaging
in IE. The main added value of using these techniques is the reduc-
tion in the rate of misdiagnosed IE, classified in the ‘Possible IE’ cat-
egory using the Duke criteria, and the detection of peripheral
embolic and metastatic infectious events.93
Limitations to the use
of 18
F-FDG PET/CT are represented by localization of septic emboli
in the brain, due to the high physiological uptake of this tracer in the
brain cortex, and to the fact that at this site, metastatic infections are
generally ,5 mm, the spatial resolution threshold of current PET/
CT scanners.
Caution must be exercised when interpreting 18
F-FDG PET/CT
results in patients who have recently undergone cardiac surgery,
as a postoperative inflammatory response may result in non-specific
18
F-FDG uptake in the immediate postoperative period. Further-
more, a number of pathological conditions can mimic the pattern
of focally increased 18
F-FDG uptake that is typically observed in
IE, such as active thrombi, soft atherosclerotic plaques, vasculitis,
primary cardiac tumours, cardiac metastasis from a non-cardiac tu-
mour, post-surgical inflammation and foreign body reactions.94
Radiolabelled WBC SPECT/CT is more specific for the detection
of IE and infectious foci than 18
F-FDG PET/CT and should be pre-
ferred in all situations that require enhanced specificity.95
Disadvan-
tages of scintigraphy with radiolabelled WBC are the requirement
of blood handling for radiopharmaceutical preparation, the duration
of the procedure, which is more time consuming than PET/CT, and a
slightly lower spatial resolution and photon detection efficiency
compared with PET/CT.
An additional promising role of 18
F-FDG PET/CT may be seen in
patients with established IE, in whom it could be employed to moni-
tor response to antimicrobial treatment. However, sufficient data
are not available at this time to make a general recommendation.
5.4 Microbiological diagnosis
5.4.1 Blood culture–positive infective endocarditis
Positive blood cultures remain the cornerstone of diagnosis and pro-
vide live bacteria for both identification and susceptibility testing. At
ESC Guidelines 3087
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-13-320.jpg)
![least three sets are taken at 30-min intervals, each containing 10 mL of
blood, and should be incubated in both aerobic and anaerobic atmo-
spheres. Sampling should be obtained from a peripheral vein rather
than from a central venous catheter (because of the risk of contam-
ination and misleading interpretation), using a meticulous sterile tech-
nique. This is virtually always sufficient to identify the usual causative
microorganisms. The need for culture before antibiotic administra-
tion is self-evident. In IE, bacteraemia is almost constant and has
two implications: (i) there is no rationale for delaying blood sampling
with peaks of fever and (ii) virtually all blood cultures are positive. As a
result, a single positive blood culture should be regarded cautiously
for establishing the diagnosis of IE. The microbiology laboratory
should be aware of the clinical suspicion of IE at the time of blood cul-
ture sampling. When a microorganism has been identified, blood cul-
tures should be repeated after 48–72 h to check the effectiveness of
treatment. Automated machines perform continuous monitoring of
bacterial growth, which ensures quick provision of reports to physi-
cians. When a positive blood culture bottle is identified, presumptive
identification is based on Gram staining. This information is immedi-
ately given to clinicians in order to adapt presumptive antibiotic ther-
apy. Complete identification is routinely achieved within 2 days, but
may require longer for fastidious or atypical organisms. Since the de-
lay between blood culture sampling and definitive identification of the
organism responsible for the bacteraemia and antibiotic susceptibility
testing is long, many improvements have been proposed to speed up
the process of detection and identification. One of the most recent
procedures for rapid bacterial identification is based on peptide spec-
tra obtained by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization
time-of-flight mass spectrometry. This technique has recently de-
monstrated its usefulness in clinical microbiology; it also has the po-
tential for direct identification of bacterial colonies in the blood
culture bottle supernatant.96
5.4.2 Blood culture–negative infective endocarditis
Blood culture–negative IE (BCNIE) refers to IE in which no causa-
tive microorganism can be grown using the usual blood culture
methods. BCNIE can occur in up to 31% of all cases of IE and often
poses considerable diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas. BCNIE
most commonly arises as a consequence of previous antibiotic
administration, underlying the need for withdrawing antibiotics
and repeating blood cultures in this situation. BCNIE can be caused
by fungi or fastidious bacteria, notably obligatory intracellular bac-
teria. Isolation of these microorganisms requires culturing them on
specialized media, and their growth is relatively slow. According to
local epidemiology, systematic serological testing for Coxiella bur-
netii, Bartonella spp., Aspergillus spp., Mycoplasma pneumonia, Brucel-
la spp. and Legionella pneumophila should be proposed, followed by
specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for Tropheryma
whipplei, Bartonella spp. and fungi (Candida spp., Aspergillus spp.)
from the blood97
(Table 12). Most studies using blood PCR
for the diagnosis of BCNIE have highlighted the importance of
Streptococcus gallolyticus and Streptococcus mitis, enterococci,
S. aureus, Escherichia coli and fastidious bacteria, the respective
prevalence of which varies according to the status and condition
of the patient.98
When all microbiological assays are negative, the diagnosis of
non-infectious endocarditis should systematically be considered
and assays for antinuclear antibodies as well as antiphospholipid syn-
drome {anticardiolipin antibodies [immunoglobulin (Ig)G] and
anti-b2-glycoprotein 1 antibodies [IgG and IgM]} should be per-
formed. When all other tests are negative and the patient has a por-
cine bioprosthesis together with markers of allergic response,
anti-pork antibodies should be sought.99
5.4.3 Histological diagnosis of infective endocarditis
Pathological examination of resected valvular tissue or embolic frag-
ments remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of IE. All tissue
samples that are excised during the course of the surgical removal
of cardiac valves must be collected in a sterile container without
fixative or culture medium. The entire sample should be taken to
the diagnostic microbiology laboratory for optimal recovery and
identification of microorganisms.
5.4.4 Proposed strategy for a microbiological diagnostic
algorithm in suspected IE
A proposed diagnostic scheme is provided in Figure 2. When there is
clinical suspicion of IE and blood cultures remain negative at 48 h,
liaison with the microbiologist is necessary. A suggested strategy is
the use of a diagnostic kit including blood cultures and systematic
serological testing for C. burnetii, Bartonella spp., Aspergillus spp.,
L. pneumophila, Brucella spp., M. pneumonia, as well as rheumatoid
factor, the serological tests for antiphospholipid syndrome [anticar-
diolipin (IgG) and anti-b2-glycoprotein 1 (IgG and IgM)], antinuclear
antibodies and anti-pork antibodies. In addition, cardiac valvular ma-
terials obtained at surgery have to be subjected to systematic cul-
ture, histological examination and PCR aimed at documenting the
presence of fastidious organisms.
Table 12 Investigation of rare causes of blood culture
negative infective endocarditis
Pathogen Diagnostic procedures
Brucella spp. Blood cultures,serology,culture,immunohistology,
and PCR of surgical material.
Coxiella burnetii Serology (IgG phase l >1:800),tissue culture,
immunohistology,and PCR of surgical material.
Bartonella spp. Blood cultures,serology,culture,immunohistology,
and PCR of surgical material.
Tropheryma
whipplei
Histology and PCR of surgical material.
Mycoplasma spp. Serology,culture,immunohistology,and PCR of
surgical material.
Legionella spp. Blood cultures,serology,culture,immunohistology,
and PCR of surgical material.
Fungi Blood cultures,serology,PCR of surgical material.
Ig ¼ immunoglobulin; PCR ¼ polymerase chain reaction.
ESC Guidelines3088
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-14-320.jpg)
![7.5 Granulicatella and Abiotrophia
(formerly nutritionally variant
streptococci)
Granulicatella and Abiotrophia produce IE with a protracted course,
which is associated with large vegetations (.10 mm), higher rates
of complications and valve replacement (around 50%),153,154
possibly due to delayed diagnosis and treatment. Antibiotic recom-
mendations include penicillin G, ceftriaxone or vancomycin for
6 weeks, combined with an aminoglycoside for at least the first
2 weeks.153,154
7.6 Staphylococcus aureus and
coagulase-negative staphylococci
Staphylococcus aureus is usually responsible for acute and destructive
IE, whereas CoNS produce more protracted valve infections
(except S. lugdunensis155
and some cases of S. capitis).156,157
Table 17
summarizes treatment recommendations for methicillin-susceptible
and methicillin-resistant S. aureus and CoNS in both native and pros-
thetic valve IE. Of note, the addition of an aminoglycoside in
staphylococcal native valve IE is no longer recommended because
it increases renal toxicity.128,158
Short-term (2-week) and oral treat-
ments have been proposed for uncomplicated right-sided native
valve methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) IE (see also section
12.4.2), but these regimens cannot be applied to left-sided IE. For
penicillin-allergic patients with MSSA IE, penicillin desensitization
can be attempted in stable patients since vancomycin is inferior to
beta-lactams159
and should not be given. If beta-lactams cannot be
given, where available, daptomycin should be chosen and given in
combination with another effective antistaphylococcal drug to
increase activity and avoid the development of resistance. Some
experts have recommended a combination of high doses of
cotrimoxazole plus clindamycin as an alternative for S. aureus
IE.160
S. lugdunensis is always methicillin susceptible and can be trea-
ted with cloxacillin.155
Staphylococcus aureus PVE carries a very high risk of mortality
(.45%)161
and often requires early valve replacement. Other dif-
ferences in comparison with NVE include the overall duration of
therapy, the use of aminoglycosides and the addition of rifampin
after 3–5 days of effective antibiotic therapy once the bacteraemia
has been cleared. The rationale supporting this recommendation is
based on the antagonistic effect of the antibiotic combinations with
rifampin against planktonic/replicating bacteria and the synergy
seen against dormant bacteria within the biofilm, as it has been
demonstrated in foreign body infection models and clinically in
prosthetic orthopaedic and vascular infections. Although the le-
vel of evidence is poor, adding rifampin to the treatment of
staphylococcal PVE is standard practice, although treatment
may be associated with microbial resistance, hepatotoxicity and
drug interactions.164
7.7 Methicillin-resistant and
vancomycin-resistant staphylococci
Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) produces low-affinity penicil-
lin binding protein 2a (PBP2a), which confers cross-resistance to
most beta-lactams. MRSA are usually resistant to multiple
antibiotics, leaving only vancomycin and daptomycin to treat severe
infections. However, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (MIC 4–
8 mg/L) and hetero-vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (MIC
≤2 mg/L, but with subpopulations growing at higher concentra-
tions) have emerged worldwide and are associated with IE treat-
ment failures.165,166
Moreover, some highly vancomycin-resistant
S. aureus strains have been isolated from infected patients in recent
years, requiring new approaches to treatment. In addition, a system-
atic review and meta-analysis of studies published between 1996 and
2011 in patients with MRSA bacteraemia with vancomycin-
susceptible strains (MIC ≤2 mg/L)167
showed that a high vancomy-
cin MIC (≥1.5 mg/L) was associated with higher mortality.
Daptomycin is a lipopeptide antibiotic approved for S. aureus
bacteraemia and right-sided IE.168
Cohort studies of S. aureus
and CoNS IE132,168 – 170
have shown that daptomycin is at least
as effective as vancomycin, and in two cohort studies of MRSA
bacteraemia with high vancomycin MICs (.1 mg/L),171,172
dapto-
mycin was associated with better outcomes (including survival)
compared with vancomycin. Importantly, daptomycin needs to
be administered in appropriate doses and combined with other
antibiotics to avoid further resistance in patients with IE.168,173
For this reason, daptomycin should be given at high doses
(≥10 mg/kg), and most experts recommend it be combined with
beta-lactams133
or fosfomycin134
[beta-lactams (and probably fos-
fomycin) increase membrane daptomycin binding by decreasing
the positive surface charge] for NVE and with gentamicin and ri-
fampin for PVE.168,173,174
Other alternatives include fosfomycin plus imipenem,175
newer
beta-lactams with relatively good PBP2a affinity such as ceftaroline,176
quinupristin–dalfopristin with or without beta-lactams,177,178
beta-
lactams plus oxazolidinones (linezolid),179
beta-lactams plus vanco-
mycin180
and high doses of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and
clindamycin.160
Such cases warrant collaborative management with
an ID specialist.
7.8 Enterococcus spp.
Enterococcal IE is primarily caused by Enterococcus faecalis (90% of
cases) and, more rarely, by Enterococcus faecium (5% of cases) or
other species.181
They pose two major problems. First, entero-
cocci are highly resistant to antibiotic-induced killing, and eradica-
tion requires prolonged administration (up to 6 weeks) of
synergistic bactericidal combinations of two cell wall inhibitors
(ampicillin plus ceftriaxone, which synergize by inhibiting comple-
mentary PBPs) or one cell wall inhibitor with aminoglycosides
(Table 18). Second, they may be resistant to multiple drugs, includ-
ing aminoglycosides [high-level aminoglycoside resistance
(HLAR)], beta-lactams (via PBP5 modification and sometimes
beta-lactamases) and vancomycin.182
Fully penicillin-susceptible strains (penicillin MIC ≤8 mg/L) are
treated with penicillin G or ampicillin (or amoxicillin) combined
with gentamicin. Ampicillin (or amoxicillin) might be preferred since
MICs are two to four times lower. Gentamicin resistance is frequent
in both E. faecalis and E. faecium.182
An aminoglycoside MIC
.500 mg/L (HLAR) is associated with the loss of bactericidal syner-
gism with cell wall inhibitors, and aminoglycosides should not be
used in such conditions. Streptomycin may remain active in such
cases and is a useful alternative.
ESC Guidelines3094
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-20-320.jpg)
![weeks in PVE. If they do not produce beta-lactamase, ampicillin
(12 g/day i.v. in four or six doses) plus gentamicin (3 mg/kg/day di-
vided into two or three doses) for 4–6 weeks is an option. Cipro-
floxacin (400 mg/8–12 h i.v. or 750 mg/12 h orally) is a less
well-validated alternative.188,189
7.9.2 Non-HACEK species
The International Collaboration on Endocarditis (ICE) reported
non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria in 49 of 2761 (1.8%) IE
cases.190
Recommended treatment is early surgery plus long-term
(at least 6 weeks) therapy with bactericidal combinations of beta-
lactams and aminoglycosides, sometimes with additional quino-
lones or cotrimoxazole. In vitro bactericidal tests and monitoring
of serum antibiotic concentrations may be helpful. Because of their
rarity and severity, these conditions should be discussed by the
Endocarditis Team or with an ID specialist.
7.10 Blood culture–negative infective
endocarditis
The main causes of BCNIE are summarized in section 5.4.2.191,192
Treatment options are summarized in Table 19.192,193
Con-
sultation with an ID specialist from the Endocarditis Team is
recommended.
7.11 Fungi
Fungi are most frequently observed in PVE and in IE affecting i.v. drug
abusers (IVDAs) and immunocompromised patients.198
Candida and
Aspergillus spp. predominate, the latter resulting in BCNIE.199,200
Mortality is very high (.50%), and treatment necessitates combined
antifungal administration and surgical valve replacement.135,198 – 200
Antifungal therapy for Candida IE includes liposomal amphotericin
B (or other lipid formulations) with or without flucytosine or an
echinocandin at high doses; and for Aspergillus IE, voriconazole is
the drug of choice and some experts recommend the addition of
an echinocandin or amphotericin B.135,198,200,201
Suppressive long-
term treatment with oral azoles (fluconazole for Candida and
voriconazole for Aspergillus) is recommended, sometimes for
life.135,198,201
Consultation with an ID specialist from the Endocardi-
tis Team is recommended.
7.12 Empirical therapy
Treatment of IE should be started promptly. Three sets of blood cul-
tures should be drawn at 30-min intervals before initiation of anti-
biotics.202
The initial choice of empirical treatment depends on
several considerations:
(1) Whether the patient has received previous antibiotic therapy.
(2) Whether the infection affects a native valve or a prosthesis
[and if so, when surgery was performed (early vs. late PVE)].
(3) The place of the infection (community, nosocomial, or non-
nosocomial healthcare-associated IE) and knowledge of the lo-
cal epidemiology, especially for antibiotic resistance and specific
genuine culture-negative pathogens (Table 19).
(4) Cloxacillin/cefazolin administration is associated with
lower mortality rates than other beta-lactams, including
Table 19 Antibiotic treatment of blood culture-negative infective endocarditis (adapted from Brouqui et al.193
)
Pathogens Proposed therapya
Treatment outcome
Brucella spp. Doxycycline (200 mg/24 h)
plus cotrimoxazole (960 mg/12 h)
plus rifampin (300–600/24 h)
for ≥3–6 monthsb
orally
Treatment success as an antibody titre <1:60.
Some authors recommend adding gentamicin for the
3 weeks.
C.burnetii
(agent of Q fever)
Doxycycline (200 mg/24 h)
plus hydroxychloroquine (200–600 mg/24 h)c
orally
(>18 months of treatment)
Treatment success as anti-phase I IgG titre
<1:200,and IgA and IgM titres <1:50.
Bartonella spp.d
Doxycycline 100 mg/12 h orally for 4 weeks
plus gentamicin (3 mg/24 h) i.v.for 2 weeks
Treatment success expected in ≥90%.
Legionella spp. (500 mg/12 h) i.v.or orally for ≥6 weeks
or clarithromycin (500 mg/12 h) i.v.for 2 weeks,then
orally for 4 weeks
plus rifampin (300–1200 mg/24 h)
Optimal treatment unknown.
Mycoplasma spp. (500 mg/12 h) i.v.or orally for ≥6 monthse
Optimal treatment unknown.
T.whipplei
(agent ofWhipple’s disease)f
Doxycycline (200 mg/24 h)
plus hydroxychloroquine (200–600 mg/24 h)c
orally for
≥18 months
Long-term treatment,optimal duration unknown.
ID ¼ infectious disease; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; Ig ¼ immunoglobulin; i.v. ¼ intravenous; U ¼ units.
a
Owing to the lack of large series, the optimal duration of treatment of IE due to these pathogens is unknown. The presented durations are based on selected case reports.
Consultation with an ID specialist is recommended.
b
Addition of streptomycin (15 mg/kg/24 h in 2 doses) for the first few weeks is optional.
c
Doxycycline plus hydroxychloroquine (with monitoring of serum hydroxychloroquine levels) is significantly superior to doxycycline.194
d
Several therapeutic regimens have been reported, including aminopenicillins (ampicillin or amoxicillin, 12 g/24 h i.v.) or cephalosporins (ceftriaxone, 2 g/24 h i.v.) combined with
aminoglycosides (gentamicin or netilmicin).195
Dosages are as for streptococcal and enterococcal IE (Tables 16 and 18).196,197
e
Newer fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) are more potent than ciprofloxacin against intracellular pathogens such as Mycoplasma spp., Legionella spp., and Chlamydia spp.
f
Treatment of Whipple’s IE remains highly empirical. In the case of central nervous system involvement, sulfadiazine 1.5 g/6 h orally must be added to doxycycline. An alternative
therapy is ceftriaxone (2 g/24 h i.v.) for 2–4 weeks or penicillin G (2 million U/4 h) and streptomycin (1 g/24 h) i.v. for 2–4 weeks followed by cotrimoxazole (800 mg/12 h) orally.
Trimethoprim is not active against T. whipplei. Successes have been reported with long-term therapy (.1 year).
ESC Guidelines 3097
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-23-320.jpg)
![frequently affected, but other valves—including left-sided—may also
become infected.425
In-hospital mortality is approximately 7%.426–429
12.4.1 Diagnosis and complications
The usual manifestations of right-sided IE are persistent fever, bacter-
aemia and multiple septic pulmonary emboli, which may manifest as
chest pain, cough or haemoptysis. When systemic emboli occur,
paradoxical embolism or associated left-sided IE should be consid-
ered. Isolated right HF is rare, but can be caused by pulmonary hyper-
tension or severe right-sided valvular regurgitation or obstruction.425
Pulmonary hypertension can be secondary to left-sided IE.
TTE usually allows assessment of tricuspid involvement because
of the anterior location of this valve and usual large vegeta-
tions.430,431
Eustachian and pulmonary valves should always be as-
sessed. TOE is more sensitive in the detection of pulmonary
vegetations432
and associated left-sided involvement.
12.4.2 Prognosis and treatment
Vegetation length .20 mm and fungal aetiology were the main pre-
dictors of death in a large retrospective cohort of right-sided IE in
IVDAs.433
In HIV-infected patients, a CD4 count ,200 cells/mL
has a high prognostic value.420,421
12.4.2.1 Antimicrobial therapy
The choice of empiric antimicrobial therapy depends on the sus-
pected microorganism, type of drug and solvent used by the addict
and the infection location.424
In any case, S. aureus must always be
covered. Initial treatment includes penicillinase-resistant penicillins,
vancomycin or daptomycin, depending on the local prevalence of
MRSA,424
in combination with gentamicin. If the patient is a pentazo-
cine addict, an antipseudomonas agent should be added.434
If an
IVDA uses brown heroin dissolved in lemon juice, Candida spp.
(not Candida albicans) should be considered and antifungal treat-
ment added.435
Once the causative organisms have been isolated,
therapy has to be adjusted.
Consistent data show that 2-week treatment may be sufficient
and that the addition of an aminoglycoside may be unnecessary.436
Two-week treatment with oxacillin (or cloxacillin) without gentami-
cin is effective for most patients with isolated tricuspid IE if all the
following criteria are fulfilled:
† MSSA,
† Good response to treatment,
† Absence of metastatic sites of infection or empyema,
† Absence of cardiac and extracardiac complications,
† Absence of associated prosthetic valve or left-sided valve
infection,
† ,20 mm vegetation, and
† Absence of severe immunosuppression (,200 CD4 cells/mL)
with or without acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
Because of limited bactericidal activity, poor penetration into vege-
tations and increased drug clearance in IVDAs, glycopeptides
(vancomycin) should not be used in a 2-week treatment. The stand-
ard 4–6-week regimen must be used in the following situations:
† Slow clinical or microbiological response (. 96 h) to antibiotic
therapy;426
† Right-sided IE complicated by right HF, vegetations .20 mm,
acute respiratory failure, septic metastatic foci outside the lungs
(including empyema) or extracardiac complications, e.g. acute re-
nal failure;426
† Therapy with antibiotics other than penicillinase-resistant
penicillins;437
† IVDA with severe immunosuppression (CD4 count ,200 cells/
mL) with or without AIDS;438
or
† Associated left-sided IE.
Alternatively, when conventional i.v. route therapy is not possible,
right-sided S. aureus IE in IVDAs may also be treated with oral cipro-
floxacin [750 mg bis in die (b.i.d.)] plus rifampicin (300 mg b.i.d.) pro-
vided that the strain is fully susceptible to both drugs, the case is
uncomplicated and patient adherence is monitored carefully.439
One randomized controlled study has demonstrated the non-
inferiority of daptomycin compared with standard therapy in the
treatment of S. aureus infections, including right-sided IE.168
When
using daptomycin, most authors recommend using high doses
(10 mg/kg/24 h) and combining it with cloxacillin or fosfomycin to
avoid the development of resistance to this drug.174
Glycopeptides
(e.g. vancomycin) or daptomycin are the agents of choice for MRSA
infections. Vancomycin may have a lower efficacy in infections
caused by MRSA strains with a vancomycin MIC .1 mg/
mL.171,172,440
In these cases, daptomycin would be the drug of
choice. For organisms other than S. aureus, therapy in IVDAs does
not differ from that in non-IVDAs.
12.4.2.2 Surgery
Given the high recurrence rate of IE due to continued drug
abuse, surgery should generally be avoided in IVDAs with right-
Table 26 Indications for surgical treatment of right-sided infective endocarditis
Recommendation Classa
Levelb
Surgical treatment should be considered in the following scenarios:
† Microorganisms difficult to eradicate (e.g. persistent fungi) or bacteraemia for . 7 days (e.g. S. aureus, P. aeruginosa) despite adequate
antimicrobial therapy or
† Persistent tricuspid valve vegetations . 20 mm after recurrent pulmonary emboli with or without concomitant right heart failure or
† Right HF secondary to severe tricuspid regurgitation with poor response to diuretic therapy
IIa C
HF ¼ heart failure.
a
Class of recommendation.
b
Level of evidence.
ESC Guidelines3112
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-38-320.jpg)
![in patients with a suspicion of prosthetic valve endocarditis and inconclusive echo-
cardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;14:586–594.
107. Bensimhon L, Lavergne T, Hugonnet F, Mainardi JL, Latremouille C, Maunoury C,
Lepillier A, Le Heuzey JY, Faraggi M. Whole body [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose posi-
tron emission tomography imaging for the diagnosis of pacemaker or implantable
cardioverter defibrillator infection: a preliminary prospective study. Clin Microbiol
Infect 2011;17:836–844.
108. Sarrazin JF, Philippon F, Tessier M, Guimond J, Molin F, Champagne J, Nault I,
Blier L, Nadeau M, Charbonneau L, Trottier M, O’Hara G. Usefulness of
fluorine-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography for identifica-
tion of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. J Am Coll Cardiol
2012;59:1616–1625.
109. Leone S, Ravasio V, Durante-Mangoni E, Crapis M, Carosi G, Scotton PG,
Barzaghi N, Falcone M, Chinello P, Pasticci MB, Grossi P, Utili R, Viale P,
Rizzi M, Suter F. Epidemiology, characteristics, and outcome of infective endocar-
ditis in Italy: the Italian Study on Endocarditis. Infection 2012;40:527–535.
110. Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miro JM, Fowler VG Jr, Bayer AS,
Karchmer AW, Olaison L, Pappas PA, Moreillon P, Chambers ST, Chu VH,
Falco V, Holland DJ, Jones P, Klein JL, Raymond NJ, Read KM, Tripodi MF,
Utili R, Wang A, Woods CW, Cabell CH. Clinical presentation, etiology, and out-
come of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration
on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:463–473.
111. Nadji G, Rusinaru D, Remadi JP, Jeu A, Sorel C, Tribouilloy C. Heart failure in left-
sided native valve infective endocarditis: characteristics, prognosis, and results of
surgical treatment. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:668–675.
112. Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Fernandez C, Lopez J, Sarria C, Ferrera C, Revilla A, Silva J,
Vivas D, Gonzalez I, San Roman JA. Contemporary epidemiology and prognosis of
septic shock in infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 2013;34:1999–2006.
113. Garcia-Cabrera E, Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Almirante B, Ivanova-Georgieva R,
Noureddine M, Plata A, Lomas JM, Galvez-Acebal J, Hidalgo-Tenorio C,
Ruiz-Morales J, Martinez-Marcos FJ, Reguera JM, Torre-Lima J, de Alarcon GA.
Neurological complications of infective endocarditis: risk factors, outcome, and
impact of cardiac surgery: a multicenter observational study. Circulation 2013;
127:2272–2284.
114. Delahaye F, Alla F, Beguinot I, Bruneval P, Doco-Lecompte T, Lacassin F,
Selton-Suty C, Vandenesch F, Vernet V, Hoen B. In-hospital mortality of infective
endocarditis: prognostic factors and evolution over an 8-year period. Scand J Infect
Dis 2007;39:849–857.
115. Thuny F, Beurtheret S, Mancini J, Gariboldi V, Casalta JP, Riberi A, Giorgi R,
Gouriet F, Tafanelli L, Avierinos JF, Renard S, Collart F, Raoult D, Habib G. The
timing of surgery influences mortality and morbidity in adults with severe compli-
cated infective endocarditis: a propensity analysis. Eur Heart J 2011;32:
2027–2033.
116. Chu VH, Cabell CH, Benjamin DK Jr, Kuniholm EF, Fowler VG Jr, Engemann J,
Sexton DJ, Corey GR, Wang A. Early predictors of in-hospital death in infective
endocarditis. Circulation 2004;109:1745–1749.
117. San Roman JA, Lopez J, Vilacosta I, Luaces M, Sarria C, Revilla A, Ronderos R,
Stoermann W, Gomez I, Fernandez-Aviles F. Prognostic stratification of patients
with left-sided endocarditis determined at admission. Am J Med 2007;120:
369–367.
118. Chambers J, Sandoe J, Ray S, Prendergast B, Taggart D, Westaby S, Arden C,
Grothier L, Wilson J, Campbell B, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Mestres CA, Rosenhek R,
Pibarot P, Otto C. The infective endocarditis team: recommendations from an
international working group. Heart 2014;100:524–527.
119. Duval X, Alla F, Doco-Lecompte T, Le MV, Delahaye F, Mainardi JL, Plesiat P,
Celard M, Hoen B, Leport C. Diabetes mellitus and infective endocarditis: the in-
sulin factor in patient morbidity and mortality. Eur Heart J 2007;28:59–64.
120. Gelsomino S, Maessen JG, van der Veen F, Livi U, Renzulli A, Luca F, Carella R,
Crudeli E, Rubino A, Rostagno C, Russo C, Borghetti V, Beghi C, De Bonis M,
Gensini GF, Lorusso R. Emergency surgery for native mitral valve endocarditis:
the impact of septic and cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:1469–1476.
121. Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Pozo E, Fernandez C, Sarria C, Lopez J, Ferrera C, Maroto L,
Gonzalez I, Vivas D, Palacios J, San Roman JA. Prognostic implications of diabetes
in patients with left-sided endocarditis: findings from a large cohort study. Medi-
cine (Baltimore) 2014;93:114–119.
122. Hoen B, Alla F, Selton-Suty C, Beguinot I, Bouvet A, Briancon S, Casalta JP,
Danchin N, Delahaye F, Etienne J, Le Moing V, Leport C, Mainardi JL, Ruimy R,
Vandenesch F. Changing profile of infective endocarditis: results of a 1-year survey
in France. JAMA 2002;288:75–81.
123. Lopez J, Sevilla T, Vilacosta I, Sarria C, Revilla A, Ortiz C, Ferrera C, Olmos C,
Gomez I, San Roman JA. Prognostic role of persistent positive blood cultures after
initiation of antibiotic therapy in left-sided infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 2013;
34:1749–1754.
124. Revilla A, Lopez J, Vilacosta I, Villacorta E, Rollan MJ, Echevarria JR, Carrascal Y, Di
Stefano S, Fulquet E, Rodriguez E, Fiz L, San Roman JA. Clinical and prognostic
profile of patients with infective endocarditis who need urgent surgery. Eur Heart
J 2007;28:65–71.
125. Mirabel M, Sonneville R, Hajage D, Novy E, Tubach F, Vignon P, Perez P, Lavoue S,
Kouatchet A, Pajot O, Mekontso-Dessap A, Tonnelier JM, Bollaert PE, Frat JP,
Navellou JC, Hyvernat H, Hssain AA, Timsit JF, Megarbane B, Wolff M,
Trouillet JL. Long-term outcomes and cardiac surgery in critically ill patients
with infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1195–1204.
126. Durack DT, Pelletier LL, Petersdorf RG. Chemotherapy of experimental strepto-
coccal endocarditis. II. Synergism between penicillin and streptomycin against
penicillin-sensitive streptococci. J Clin Invest 1974;53:829–833.
127. Wilson WR, Geraci JE, Wilkowske CJ, Washington JA. Short-term intramuscular
therapy with procaine penicillin plus streptomycin for infective endocarditis due
to viridans streptococci. Circulation 1978;57:1158–1161.
128. Cosgrove SE, Vigliani GA, Fowler VG Jr, Abrutyn E, Corey GR, Levine DP,
Rupp ME, Chambers HF, Karchmer AW, Boucher HW. Initial low-dose gentami-
cin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis is nephrotoxic. Clin
Infect Dis 2009;48:713–721.
129. Dahl A, Rasmussen RV, Bundgaard H, Hassager C, Bruun LE, Lauridsen TK,
Moser C, Sogaard P, Arpi M, Bruun NE. Enterococcus faecalis infective endocar-
ditis: a pilot study of the relationship between duration of gentamicin treatment
and outcome. Circulation 2013;127:1810–1817.
130. Miro JM, Garcia-de-la-Maria C, Armero Y, Soy D, Moreno A, del Rio A, Almela M,
Sarasa M, Mestres CA, Gatell JM, Jimenez de Anta MT, Marco F. Addition of gen-
tamicin or rifampin does not enhance the effectiveness of daptomycin in treat-
ment of experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009;53:4172–4177.
131. Garrigos C, Murillo O, Lora-Tamayo J, Verdaguer R, Tubau F, Cabellos C, Cabo J,
Ariza J. Fosfomycin-daptomycin and other fosfomycin combinations as alternative
therapies in experimental foreign-body infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylo-
coccus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:606–610.
132. Kullar R, Casapao AM, Davis SL, Levine DP, Zhao JJ, Crank CW, Segreti J,
Sakoulas G, Cosgrove SE, Rybak MJ. A multicentre evaluation of the effectiveness
and safety of high-dose daptomycin for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2013;68:2921–2926.
133. Dhand A, Bayer AS, Pogliano J, Yang SJ, Bolaris M, Nizet V, Wang G, Sakoulas G.
Use of antistaphylococcal beta-lactams to increase daptomycin activity in eradi-
cating persistent bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus:
role of enhanced daptomycin binding. Clin Infect Dis 2011;53:158–163.
134. Miro JM, Entenza JM, del Rio A, Velasco M, Castaneda X, Garcia de la Maria C,
Giddey M, Armero Y, Pericas JM, Cervera C, Mestres CA, Almela M, Falces C,
Marco F, Moreillon P, Moreno A. High-dose daptomycin plus fosfomycin is safe
and effective in treating methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylo-
coccus aureus endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:4511–4515.
135. Gould FK, Denning DW, Elliott TS, Foweraker J, Perry JD, Prendergast BD,
Sandoe JA, Spry MJ, Watkin RW, Working Party of the British Society for Anti-
microbial Chemotherapy. Guidelines for the diagnosis and antibiotic treatment
of endocarditis in adults: a report of the Working Party of the British Society
for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:269–289.
136. Westling K, Aufwerber E, Ekdahl C, Friman G, Gardlund B, Julander I, Olaison L,
Olesund C, Rundstrom H, Snygg-Martin U, Thalme A, Werner M, Hogevik H.
Swedish guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis. Scand J
Infect Dis 2007;39:929–946.
137. Francioli P, Ruch W, Stamboulian D. Treatment of streptococcal endocarditis
with a single daily dose of ceftriaxone and netilmicin for 14 days: a prospective
multicenter study. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21:1406–1410.
138. Francioli P, Etienne J, Hoigne R, Thys JP, Gerber A. Treatment of streptococcal
endocarditis with a single daily dose of ceftriaxone sodium for 4 weeks. Efficacy
and outpatient treatment feasibility. JAMA 1992;267:264–267.
139. Sexton DJ, Tenenbaum MJ, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Tice AD, Gilbert D,
Dismukes W, Drew RH, Durack DT. Ceftriaxone once daily for four weeks com-
pared with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin once daily for two weeks for treatment of
endocarditis due to penicillin-susceptible streptococci. Endocarditis Treatment
Consortium Group. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:1470–1474.
140. Cremieux AC, Maziere B, Vallois JM, Ottaviani M, Azancot A, Raffoul H, Bouvet A,
Pocidalo JJ, Carbon C. Evaluation of antibiotic diffusion into cardiac vegetations by
quantitative autoradiography. J Infect Dis 1989;159:938–944.
141. Wilson AP, Gaya H. Treatment of endocarditis with teicoplanin: a retrospective
analysis of 104 cases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996;38:507–521.
142. Venditti M, Tarasi A, Capone A, Galie M, Menichetti F, Martino P, Serra P. Teico-
planin in the treatment of enterococcal endocarditis: clinical and microbiological
study. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997;40:449–452.
143. Moet GJ, Dowzicky MJ, Jones RN. Tigecycline (GAR-936) activity against Strepto-
coccus gallolyticus (bovis) and viridans group streptococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis
2007;57:333–336.
ESC Guidelines3120
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-46-320.jpg)
![144. Levy CS, Kogulan P, Gill VJ, Croxton MB, Kane JG, Lucey DR. Endocarditis caused
by penicillin-resistant viridans streptococci: 2 cases and controversies in therapy.
Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:577–579.
145. Knoll B, Tleyjeh IM, Steckelberg JM, Wilson WR, Baddour LM. Infective endocar-
ditis due to penicillin-resistant viridans group streptococci. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:
1585–1592.
146. Hsu RB, Lin FY. Effect of penicillin resistance on presentation and outcome of
nonenterococcal streptococcal infective endocarditis. Cardiology 2006;105:
234–239.
147. Shelburne SA III, Greenberg SB, Aslam S, Tweardy DJ. Successful ceftriaxone ther-
apy of endocarditis due to penicillin non-susceptible viridans streptococci. J Infect
2007;54:e99–e101.
148. Nicolau DP, Freeman CD, Belliveau PP, Nightingale CH, Ross JW, Quintiliani R.
Experience with a once-daily aminoglycoside program administered to 2,184
adult patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995;39:650–655.
149. Martinez E, Miro JM, Almirante B, Aguado JM, Fernandez-Viladrich P,
Fernandez-Guerrero ML, Villanueva JL, Dronda F, Moreno-Torrico A,
Montejo M, Llinares P, Gatell JM. Effect of penicillin resistance of Streptococcus
pneumoniae on the presentation, prognosis, and treatment of pneumococcal
endocarditis in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2002;35:130–139.
150. Friedland IR, McCracken GH Jr. Management of infections caused by
antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. N Engl J Med 1994;331:377–382.
151. Lefort A, Lortholary O, Casassus P, Selton-Suty C, Guillevin L, Mainardi JL. Com-
parison between adult endocarditis due to beta-hemolytic streptococci (ser-
ogroups A, B, C, and G) and Streptococcus milleri: a multicenter study in France.
Arch Intern Med 2002;162:2450–2456.
152. Sambola A, Miro JM, Tornos MP, Almirante B, Moreno-Torrico A, Gurgui M,
Martinez E, del Rio A, Azqueta M, Marco F, Gatell JM. Streptococcus agalactiae in-
fective endocarditis: analysis of 30 cases and review of the literature, 1962–1998.
Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1576–1584.
153. Giuliano S, Caccese R, Carfagna P, Vena A, Falcone M, Venditti M. Endocarditis
caused by nutritionally variant streptococci: a case report and literature review.
Infez Med 2012;20:67–74.
154. Adam EL, Siciliano RF, Gualandro DM, Calderaro D, Issa VS, Rossi F, Caramelli B,
Mansur AJ, Strabelli TM. Case series of infective endocarditis caused by Granulica-
tella species. Int J Infect Dis 2015;31:56–58.
155. Anguera I, del Rio A, Miro JM, Matinez-Lacasa X, Marco F, Guma JR, Quaglio G,
Claramonte X, Moreno A, Mestres CA, Mauri E, Azqueta M, Benito N, Garcia-de
la Maria C, Almela M, Jimenez-Exposito MJ, Sued O, de Lazzari E, Gatell JM.
Staphylococcus lugdunensis infective endocarditis: description of 10 cases and ana-
lysis of native valve, prosthetic valve, and pacemaker lead endocarditis clinical pro-
files. Heart 2005;91:e10.
156. Cone LA, Sontz EM, Wilson JW, Mitruka SN. Staphylococcus capitis endocarditis
due to a transvenous endocardial pacemaker infection: case report and review
of Staphylococcus capitis endocarditis. Int J Infect Dis 2005;9:335–339.
157. Sandoe JA, Kerr KG, Reynolds GW, Jain S. Staphylococcus capitis endocarditis: two
cases and review of the literature. Heart 1999;82:e1.
158. Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococ-
cus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts:
a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1982;97:496–503.
159. Apellaniz G, Valdes M, Perez R, Martin-Luengo F, Garcia A, Soria F, Gomez J.
[Teicoplanin versus cloxacillin, cloxacillin-gentamycin and vancomycin in the
treatment of experimental endocarditis caused by methicillin-sensitive Staphylo-
coccus aureus]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 1991;9:208–210.
160. Casalta JP, Zaratzian C, Hubert S, Thuny F, Gouriet F, Habib G, Grisoli D,
Deharo JC, Raoult D. Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis with high
doses of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin—preliminary report.
Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013;42:190–191.
161. Chirouze C, Cabell CH, Fowler VG Jr, Khayat N, Olaison L, Miro JM, Habib G,
Abrutyn E, Eykyn S, Corey GR, Selton-Suty C, Hoen B. Prognostic factors in 61
cases of Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic valve infective endocarditis from the
International Collaboration on Endocarditis merged database. Clin Infect Dis
2004;38:1323–1327.
162. Zimmerli W, Widmer AF, Blatter M, Frei R, Ochsner PE. Role of rifampin for treat-
ment of orthopedic implant-related staphylococcal infections: a randomized con-
trolled trial. Foreign-Body Infection (FBI) Study Group. JAMA 1998;279:1537–1541.
163. O’Connor S, Andrew P, Batt M, Becquemin JP. A systematic review and
meta-analysis of treatments for aortic graft infection. J Vasc Surg 2006;44:38–45.
164. Riedel DJ, Weekes E, Forrest GN. Addition of rifampin to standard therapy for
treatment of native valve infective endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:2463–2467.
165. Howden BP, Johnson PD, Ward PB, Stinear TP, Davies JK. Isolates with low-level
vancomycin resistance associated with persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:3039–3047.
166. Bae IG, Federspiel JJ, Miro JM, Woods CW, Park L, Rybak MJ, Rude TH, Bradley S,
Bukovski S, de la Maria CG, Kanj SS, Korman TM, Marco F, Murdoch DR, Plesiat P,
Rodriguez-Creixems M, Reinbott P, Steed L, Tattevin P, Tripodi MF, Newton KL,
Corey GR, Fowler VG Jr. Heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate susceptibility
phenotype in bloodstream methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from
an international cohort of patients with infective endocarditis: prevalence, geno-
type, and clinical significance. J Infect Dis 2009;200:1355–1366.
167. van Hal SJ, Lodise TP, Paterson DL. The clinical significance of vancomycin min-
imum inhibitory concentration in Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic re-
view and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:755–771.
168. Fowler VG Jr, Boucher HW, Corey GR, Abrutyn E, Karchmer AW, Rupp ME,
Levine DP, Chambers HF, Tally FP, Vigliani GA, Cabell CH, Link AS, DeMeyer I,
Filler SG, Zervos M, Cook P, Parsonnet J, Bernstein JM, Price CS, Forrest GN,
Fatkenheuer G, Gareca M, Rehm SJ, Brodt HR, Tice A, Cosgrove SE. Daptomycin
versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococ-
cus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006;355:653–665.
169. Levine DP, Lamp KC. Daptomycin in the treatment of patients with infective
endocarditis: experience from a registry. Am J Med 2007;120(Suppl 1):S28–S33.
170. Carugati M, Bayer AS, Miro JM, Park LP, Guimaraes AC, Skoutelis A, Fortes CQ,
Durante-Mangoni E, Hannan MM, Nacinovich F, Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Grossi P,
Tan RS, Holland T, Fowler VG Jr, Corey RG, Chu VH. High-dose daptomycin ther-
apy for left-sided infective endocarditis: a prospective study from the International
Collaboration on Endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:6213–6222.
171. Moore CL, Osaki-Kiyan P, Haque NZ, Perri MB, Donabedian S, Zervos MJ. Dap-
tomycin versus vancomycin for bloodstream infections due to methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a high vancomycin minimum inhibitory con-
centration: a case-control study. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:51–58.
172. Murray KP, Zhao JJ, Davis SL, Kullar R, Kaye KS, Lephart P, Rybak MJ. Early use of
daptomycin versus vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bac-
teremia with vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration .1 mg/L: a matched
cohort study. Clin Infect Dis 2013;56:1562–1569.
173. Gould IM, Miro JM, Rybak MJ. Daptomycin: the role of high-dose and combination
therapy for Gram-positive infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013;42:202–210.
174. Rose WE, Leonard SN, Sakoulas G, Kaatz GW, Zervos MJ, Sheth A, Carpenter CF,
Rybak MJ. Daptomycin activity against Staphylococcus aureus following vancomycin
exposure in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model with simulated endocardial ve-
getations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:831–836.
175. del Rio A, Gasch O, Moreno A, Pena C, Cuquet J, Soy D, Mestres CA, Suarez C,
Pare JC, Tubau F, Garcia de la Maria C, Marco F, Carratala J, Gatell JM, Gudiol F,
Miro JM. Efficacy and safety of fosfomycin plus imipenem as rescue therapy for
complicated bacteremia and endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus: a multicenter clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:1105–1112.
176. Tattevin P, Boutoille D, Vitrat V, Van Grunderbeeck N, Revest M, Dupont M,
Alfandari S, Stahl JP. Salvage treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal
endocarditis with ceftaroline: a multicentre observational study. J Antimicrob Che-
mother 2014;69:2010–2013.
177. Guignard B, Entenza JM, Moreillon P. Beta-lactams against methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2005;5:479–489.
178. Vouillamoz J, Entenza JM, Feger C, Glauser MP, Moreillon P. Quinupristin-
dalfopristin combined with beta-lactams for treatment of experimental endocar-
ditis due to Staphylococcus aureus constitutively resistant to macrolide-
lincosamide-streptogramin B antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:
1789–1795.
179. Jang HC, Kim SH, Kim KH, Kim CJ, Lee S, Song KH, Jeon JH, Park WB, Kim HB,
Park SW, Kim NJ, Kim EC, Oh MD, Choe KW. Salvage treatment for persistent
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: efficacy of linezolid with
or without carbapenem. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:395–401.
180. Perichon B, Courvalin P. Synergism between beta-lactams and glycopeptides
against VanA-type methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and heterologous
expression of the vanA operon. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:
3622–3630.
181. Chirouze C, Athan E, Alla F, Chu VH, Ralph CG, Selton-Suty C, Erpelding ML,
Miro JM, Olaison L, Hoen B. Enterococcal endocarditis in the beginning of the
21st century: analysis from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-
Prospective Cohort Study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013;19:1140–1147.
182. Reynolds R, Potz N, Colman M, Williams A, Livermore D, MacGowan A. Anti-
microbial susceptibility of the pathogens of bacteraemia in the UK and Ireland
2001–2002: the BSAC Bacteraemia Resistance Surveillance Programme.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;53:1018–1032.
183. Gavalda J, Len O, Miro JM, Munoz P, Montejo M, Alarcon A, Torre-Cisneros J,
Pena C, Martinez-Lacasa X, Sarria C, Bou G, Aguado JM, Navas E, Romeu J,
Marco F, Torres C, Tornos P, Planes A, Falco V, Almirante B, Pahissa A. Brief com-
munication: treatment of Enterococcus faecalis endocarditis with ampicillin plus
ceftriaxone. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:574–579.
ESC Guidelines 3121
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-47-320.jpg)
![227. Graupner C, Vilacosta I, San Roman J, Ronderos R, Sarria C, Fernandez C,
Mujica R, Sanz O, Sanmartin JV, Pinto AG. Periannular extension of infective
endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1204–1211.
228. Lengyel M. The impact of transesophageal echocardiography on the management
of prosthetic valve endocarditis: experience of 31 cases and review of the litera-
ture. J Heart Valve Dis 1997;6:204–211.
229. Forteza A, Centeno J, Ospina V, Lunar IG, Sanchez V, Perez E, Lopez MJ, Cortina J.
Outcomes in aortic and mitral valve replacement with intervalvular fibrous body
reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 2015;99:838–845.
230. Chan KL. Early clinical course and long-term outcome of patients with infective
endocarditis complicated by perivalvular abscess. CMAJ 2002;167:19–24.
231. Tingleff J, Egeblad H, Gotzsche CO, Baandrup U, Kristensen BO, Pilegaard H,
Pettersson G. Perivalvular cavities in endocarditis: abscesses versus pseudoaneur-
ysms? A transesophageal Doppler echocardiographic study in 118 patients with
endocarditis. Am Heart J 1995;130:93–100.
232. Jenkins NP, Habib G, Prendergast BD. Aorto-cavitary fistulae in infective endocar-
ditis: understanding a rare complication through collaboration. Eur Heart J 2005;
26:213–214.
233. Bashore TM, Cabell C, Fowler V Jr. Update on infective endocarditis. Curr Probl
Cardiol 2006;31:274–352.
234. Manzano MC, Vilacosta I, San Roman JA, Aragoncillo P, Sarria C, Lopez D, Lopez J,
Revilla A, Manchado R, Hernandez R, Rodriguez E. [Acute coronary syndrome in
infective endocarditis]. Rev Esp Cardiol 2007;60:24–31.
235. Manne MB, Shrestha NK, Lytle BW, Nowicki ER, Blackstone E, Gordon SM,
Pettersson G, Fraser TG. Outcomes after surgical treatment of native and pros-
thetic valve infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:489–493.
236. Glazier JJ, Verwilghen J, Donaldson RM, Ross DN. Treatment of complicated
prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis with annular abscess formation by homograft
aortic root replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:1177–1182.
237. Knosalla C, Weng Y, Yankah AC, Siniawski H, Hofmeister J, Hammerschmidt R,
Loebe M, Hetzer R. Surgical treatment of active infective aortic valve endocarditis
with associated periannular abscess—11 year results. Eur Heart J 2000;21:490–497.
238. Ellis ME, Al Abdely H, Sandridge A, Greer W, Ventura W. Fungal endocarditis: evi-
dence in the world literature, 1965–1995. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32:50–62.
239. Baddley JW, Benjamin DK Jr, Patel M, Miro J, Athan E, Barsic B, Bouza E, Clara L,
Elliott T, Kanafani Z, Klein J, Lerakis S, Levine D, Spelman D, Rubinstein E,
Tornos P, Morris AJ, Pappas P, Fowler VG Jr, Chu VH, Cabell C. Candida infective
endocarditis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2008;27:519–529.
240. Bishara J, Leibovici L, Gartman-Israel D, Sagie A, Kazakov A, Miroshnik E,
Ashkenazi S, Pitlik S. Long-term outcome of infective endocarditis: the impact
of early surgical intervention. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:1636–1643.
241. Remadi JP, Habib G, Nadji G, Brahim A, Thuny F, Casalta JP, Peltier M,
Tribouilloy C. Predictors of death and impact of surgery in Staphylococcus aureus
infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:1295–1302.
242. Di SalvoG, Habib G, Pergola V, Avierinos JF, Philip E, Casalta JP, Vailloud JM,
Derumeaux G, Gouvernet J, Ambrosi P, Lambert M, Ferracci A, Raoult D,
Luccioni R. Echocardiography predicts embolic events in infective endocarditis.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1069–1076.
243. Steckelberg JM, Murphy JG, Ballard D, Bailey K, Tajik AJ, Taliercio CP, Giuliani ER,
Wilson WR. Emboli in infective endocarditis: the prognostic value of echocardi-
ography. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:635–640.
244. De Castro S, Magni G, Beni S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, Venditti M, Schwartz SL,
Fedele F, Pandian NG. Role of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiog-
raphy in predicting embolic events in patients with active infective endocarditis
involving native cardiac valves. Am J Cardiol 1997;80:1030–1034.
245. Heinle S, Wilderman N, Harrison JK, Waugh R, Bashore T, Nicely LM, Durack D,
Kisslo J. Value of transthoracic echocardiography in predicting embolic events in
active infective endocarditis. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Cardiol 1994;74:
799–801.
246. Rohmann S, Erbel R, Gorge G, Makowski T, Mohr-Kahaly S, Nixdorff U,
Drexler M, Meyer J. Clinical relevance of vegetation localization by transoesopha-
geal echocardiography in infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 1992;13:446–452.
247. Erbel R, Liu F, Ge J, Rohmann S, Kupferwasser I. Identification of high-risk sub-
groups in infective endocarditis and the role of echocardiography. Eur Heart J
1995;16:588–602.
248. Sanfilippo AJ, Picard MH, Newell JB, Rosas E, Davidoff R, Thomas JD, Weyman AE.
Echocardiographic assessment of patients with infectious endocarditis: prediction
of risk for complications. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:1191–1199.
249. Mugge A, Daniel WG, Frank G, Lichtlen PR. Echocardiography in infective endo-
carditis: reassessment of prognostic implications of vegetation size determined by
the transthoracic and the transesophageal approach. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14:
631–638.
250. Dickerman SA, Abrutyn E, Barsic B, Bouza E, Cecchi E, Moreno A,
Doco-Lecompte T, Eisen DP, Fortes CQ, Fowler VG Jr, Lerakis S, Miro JM,
Pappas P, Peterson GE, Rubinstein E, Sexton DJ, Suter F, Tornos P,
Verhagen DW, Cabell CH. The relationship between the initiation of antimicro-
bial therapy and the incidence of stroke in infective endocarditis: an analysis from
the ICE Prospective Cohort Study (ICE-PCS). Am Heart J 2007;154:1086–1094.
251. Cabell CH, Pond KK, Peterson GE, Durack DT, Corey GR, Anderson DJ, Ryan T,
Lukes AS, Sexton DJ. The risk of stroke and death in patients with aortic and mitral
valve endocarditis. Am Heart J 2001;142:75–80.
252. Tischler MD, Vaitkus PT. The ability of vegetation size on echocardiography to
predict clinical complications: a meta-analysis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1997;10:
562–568.
253. Rohmann S, Erbel R, Darius H, Gorge G, Makowski T, Zotz R, Mohr-Kahaly S,
Nixdorff U, Drexler M, Meyer J. Prediction of rapid versus prolonged healing of
infective endocarditis by monitoring vegetation size. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1991;4:
465–474.
254. Pergola V, Di Salvo G, Habib G, Avierinos JF, Philip E, Vailloud JM, Thuny F,
Casalta JP, Ambrosi P, Lambert M, Riberi A, Ferracci A, Mesana T, Metras D,
Harle JR, Weiller PJ, Raoult D, Luccioni R. Comparison of clinical and echocardio-
graphic characteristics of Streptococcus bovis endocarditis with that caused by
other pathogens. Am J Cardiol 2001;88:871–875.
255. Durante ME, Adinolfi LE, Tripodi MF, Andreana A, Gambardella M, Ragone E,
Precone DF, Utili R, Ruggiero G. Risk factors for "major" embolic events in hospi-
talized patients with infective endocarditis. Am Heart J 2003;146:311–316.
256. Kupferwasser LI, Hafner G, Mohr-Kahaly S, Erbel R, Meyer J, Darius H. The pres-
ence of infection-related antiphospholipid antibodies in infective endocarditis de-
termines a major risk factor for embolic events. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:
1365–1371.
257. Anavekar NS, Tleyjeh IM, Anavekar NS, Mirzoyev Z, Steckelberg JM, Haddad C,
Khandaker MH, Wilson WR, Chandrasekaran K, Baddour LM. Impact of prior
antiplatelet therapy on risk of embolism in infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis
2007;44:1180–1186.
258. Chan KL, Dumesnil JG, Cujec B, Sanfilippo AJ, Jue J, Turek MA, Robinson TI,
Moher D. A randomized trial of aspirin on the risk of embolic events in patients
with infective endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:775–780.
259. Heiro M, Nikoskelainen J, Engblom E, Kotilainen E, Marttila R, Kotilainen P. Neuro-
logic manifestations of infective endocarditis: a 17-year experience in a teaching
hospital in Finland. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:2781–2787.
260. Tleyjeh IM, Steckelberg JM, Georgescu G, Ghomrawi HM, Hoskin TL, Enders FB,
Mookadam F, Huskins WC, Wilson WR, Baddour LM. The association between
the timing of valve surgery and 6-month mortality in left-sided infective endocar-
ditis. Heart 2008;94:892–896.
261. Barsic B, Dickerman S, Krajinovic V, Pappas P, Altclas J, Carosi G, Casabe JH,
Chu VH, Delahaye F, Edathodu J, Fortes CQ, Olaison L, Pangercic A, Patel M,
Rudez I, Tamin SS, Vincelj J, Bayer AS, Wang A. Influence of the timing of cardiac
surgery on the outcome of patients with infective endocarditis and stroke. Clin In-
fect Dis 2013;56:209–217.
262. Bannay A, Hoen B, Duval X, Obadia JF, Selton-Suty C, Le MV, Tattevin P, Iung B,
Delahaye F, Alla F. The impact of valve surgery on short- and long-term mortality
in left-sided infective endocarditis: do differences in methodological approaches
explain previous conflicting results? Eur Heart J 2011;32:2003–2015.
263. Ruttmann E, Willeit J, Ulmer H, Chevtchik O, Hofer D, Poewe W, Laufer G,
Muller LC. Neurological outcome of septic cardioembolic stroke after infective
endocarditis. Stroke 2006;37:2094–2099.
264. Yoshioka D, Sakaguchi T, Yamauchi T, Okazaki S, Miyagawa S, Nishi H,
Yoshikawa Y, Fukushima S, Saito S, Sawa Y. Impact of early surgical treatment
on postoperative neurologic outcome for active infective endocarditis compli-
cated by cerebral infarction. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;94:489–495.
265. Eishi K, Kawazoe K, Kuriyama Y, Kitoh Y, Kawashima Y, Omae T. Surgical manage-
ment of infective endocarditis associated with cerebral complications. Multi-
center retrospective study in Japan. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995;110:1745–1755.
266. Wilbring M, Irmscher L, Alexiou K, Matschke K, Tugtekin SM. The impact of pre-
operative neurological events in patients suffering from native infective valve
endocarditis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014;18:740–747.
267. Hui FK, Bain M, Obuchowski NA, Gordon S, Spiotta AM, Moskowitz S, Toth G,
Hussain S. Mycotic aneurysm detection rates with cerebral angiography in pa-
tients with infective endocarditis. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:449–452.
268. Ducruet AF, Hickman ZL, Zacharia BE, Narula R, Grobelny BT, Gorski J,
Connolly ES Jr. Intracranial infectious aneurysms: a comprehensive review. Neuro-
surg Rev 2010;33:37–46.
269. Peters PJ, Harrison T, Lennox JL. A dangerous dilemma: management of infectious
intracranial aneurysms complicating endocarditis. Lancet Infect Dis 2006;6:
742–748.
270. Corr P, Wright M, Handler LC. Endocarditis-related cerebral aneurysms: radio-
logic changes with treatment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1995;16:745–748.
271. White PM, Teasdale EM, Wardlaw JM, Easton V. Intracranial aneurysms: CT angi-
ography and MR angiography for detection prospective blinded comparison in a
large patient cohort. Radiology 2001;219:739–749.
ESC Guidelines 3123
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-49-320.jpg)
![404. Meier-Ewert HK, Gray ME, John RM. Endocardial pacemaker or defibrillator leads
with infected vegetations: a single-center experience and consequences of trans-
venous extraction. Am Heart J 2003;146:339–344.
405. Ruttmann E, Hangler HB, Kilo J, Hofer D, Muller LC, Hintringer F, Muller S,
Laufer G, Antretter H. Transvenous pacemaker lead removal is safe and effective
even in large vegetations: an analysis of 53 cases of pacemaker lead endocarditis.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:231–236.
406. Gaynor SL, Zierer A, Lawton JS, Gleva MJ, Damiano RJ Jr., Moon MR. Laser assist-
ance for extraction of chronically implanted endocardial leads: infectious versus
noninfectious indications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:1352–1358.
407. Braun MU, Rauwolf T, Bock M, Kappert U, Boscheri A, Schnabel A, Strasser RH.
Percutaneous lead implantation connected to an external device in stimulation-
dependent patients with systemic infection—a prospective and controlled study.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:875–879.
408. Kornberger A, Schmid E, Kalender G, Stock UA, Doernberger V, Khalil M, Lisy M.
Bridge to recovery or permanent system implantation: an eight-year single-center
experience in transvenous semipermanent pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2013;
36:1096–1103.
409. Kawata H, Pretorius V, Phan H, Mulpuru S, Gadiyaram V, Patel J, Steltzner D,
Krummen D, Feld G, Birgersdotter-Green U. Utility and safety of temporary pa-
cing using active fixation leads and externalized re-usable permanent pacemakers
after lead extraction. Europace 2013;15:1287–1291.
410. Pecha S, Aydin MA, Yildirim Y, Sill B, Reiter B, Wilke I, Reichenspurner H,
Treede H. Transcutaneous lead implantation connected to an externalized pace-
maker in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator/pacemaker infection and
pacemaker dependency. Europace 2013;15:1205–1209.
411. Mourvillier B, Trouillet JL, Timsit JF, Baudot J, Chastre J, Regnier B, Gibert C,
Wolff M. Infective endocarditis in the intensive care unit: clinical spectrum and
prognostic factors in 228 consecutive patients. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:
2046–2052.
412. Sonneville R, Mirabel M, Hajage D, Tubach F, Vignon P, Perez P, Lavoue S,
Kouatchet A, Pajot O, Mekontso DA, Tonnelier JM, Bollaert PE, Frat JP,
Navellou JC, Hyvernat H, Hssain AA, Tabah A, Trouillet JL, Wolff M. Neurologic
complications and outcomes of infective endocarditis in critically ill patients: the
ENDOcardite en REAnimation prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med
2011;39:1474–1481.
413. Fernandez Guerrero ML, Alvarez B, Manzarbeitia F, Renedo G. Infective endocar-
ditis at autopsy: a review of pathologic manifestations and clinical correlates. Medi-
cine (Baltimore) 2012;91:152–164.
414. Saydain G, Singh J, Dalal B, Yoo W, Levine DP. Outcome of patients with injection
drug use-associated endocarditis admitted to an intensive care unit. J Crit Care
2010;25:248–253.
415. McDonald JR. Acute infective endocarditis. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2009;23:
643–664.
416. Karth G, Koreny M, Binder T, Knapp S, Zauner C, Valentin A, Honninger R,
Heinz G, Siostrzonek P. Complicated infective endocarditis necessitating ICU ad-
mission: clinical course and prognosis. Crit Care 2002;6:149–154.
417. Glockner A, Cornely OA. [Invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic adults:
guideline-based management in the intensive care unit]. Anaesthetist 2013;62:
1003–1009.
418. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, Sevransky JE,
Sprung CL, Douglas IS, Jaeschke R, Osborn TM, Nunnally ME, Townsend SR,
Reinhart K, Kleinpell RM, Angus DC, Deutschman CS, Machado FR,
Rubenfeld GD, Webb S, Beale RJ, Vincent JL, Moreno R. Surviving Sepsis Cam-
paign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,
2012. Intensive Care Med 2013;39:165–228.
419. Frontera JA, Gradon JD. Right-side endocarditis in injection drug users: review of
proposed mechanisms of pathogenesis. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:374–379.
420. Wilson LE, Thomas DL, Astemborski J, Freedman TL, Vlahov D. Prospective study
of infective endocarditis among injection drug users. J Infect Dis 2002;185:
1761–1766.
421. Gebo KA, Burkey MD, Lucas GM, Moore RD, Wilson LE. Incidence of, risk factors
for, clinical presentation, and 1-year outcomes of infective endocarditis in an ur-
ban HIV cohort. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006;43:426–432.
422. Cooper HL, Brady JE, Ciccarone D, Tempalski B, Gostnell K, Friedman SR. Na-
tionwide increase in the number of hospitalizations for illicit injection drug
use-related infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:1200–1203.
423. Miro JM, del Rio A, Mestres CA. Infective endocarditis and cardiac surgery in intra-
venous drug abusers and HIV-1 infected patients. Cardiol Clin 2003;21:167–184.
424. Sousa C, Botelho C, Rodrigues D, Azeredo J, Oliveira R. Infective endocarditis in
intravenous drug abusers: an update. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31:
2905–2910.
425. Carozza A, De Santo LS, Romano G, Della CA, Ursomando F, Scardone M,
Caianiello G, Cotrufo M. Infective endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers:
patterns of presentation and long-term outcomes of surgical treatment. J Heart
Valve Dis 2006;15:125–131.
426. Hecht SR, Berger M. Right-sided endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Prognostic
features in 102 episodes. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:560–566.
427. Moss R, Munt B. Injection drug use and right sided endocarditis. Heart 2003;89:
577–581.
428. Gottardi R, Bialy J, Devyatko E, Tschernich H, Czerny M, Wolner E,
Seitelberger R. Midterm follow-up of tricuspid valve reconstruction due to active
infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:1943–1948.
429. Gaca JG, Sheng S, Daneshmand M, Rankin JS, Williams ML, O’Brien SM,
Gammie JS. Current outcomes for tricuspid valve infective endocarditis surgery
in North America. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96:1374–1381.
430. San Roman JA, Vilacosta I, Lopez J, Revilla A, Arnold R, Sevilla T, Rollan MJ. Role of
transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography in right-sided endocarditis:
one echocardiographic modality does not fit all. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2012;25:
807–814.
431. San Roman JA, Vilacosta I, Zamorano JL, Almeria C, Sanchez-Harguindey L. Trans-
esophageal echocardiography in right-sided endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;
21:1226–1230.
432. Winslow T, Foster E, Adams JR, Schiller NB. Pulmonary valve endocarditis: im-
proved diagnosis with biplane transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echo-
cardiogr 1992;5:206–210.
433. Botsford KB, Weinstein RA, Nathan CR, Kabins SA. Selective survival in pentazo-
cine and tripelennamine of Pseudomonas aeruginosa serotype O11 from drug ad-
dicts. J Infect Dis 1985;151:209–216.
434. Martin-Davila P, Navas E, Fortun J, Moya JL, Cobo J, Pintado V, Quereda C,
Jimenez-Mena M, Moreno S. Analysis of mortality and risk factors associated
with native valve endocarditis in drug users: the importance of vegetation size.
Am Heart J 2005;150:1099–1106.
435. Bisbe J, Miro JM, Latorre X, Moreno A, Mallolas J, Gatell JM, de la Bellacasa JP,
Soriano E. Disseminated candidiasis in addicts who use brown heroin: report of
83 cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1992;15:910–923.
436. Ribera E, Gomez-Jimenez J, Cortes E, del Valle O, Planes A, Gonzalez-Alujas T,
Almirante B, Ocana I, Pahissa A. Effectiveness of cloxacillin with and without gen-
tamicin in short-term therapy for right-sided Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. A
randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:969–974.
437. Fortun J, Perez-Molina JA, Anon MT, Martinez-Beltran J, Loza E, Guerrero A.
Right-sided endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus in drug abusers. Antimi-
crob Agents Chemother 1995;39:525–528.
438. Pulvirenti JJ, Kerns E, Benson C, Lisowski J, Demarais P, Weinstein RA. Infective
endocarditis in injection drug users: importance of human immunodeficiency
virus serostatus and degree of immunosuppression. Clin Infect Dis 1996;22:40–45.
439. Al Omari A, Cameron DW, Lee C, Corrales-Medina VF. Oral antibiotic therapy
for the treatment of infective endocarditis: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis
2014;14:140.
440. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC Jr.,
Eliopoulos GM. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vanco-
mycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin
Microbiol 2004;42:2398–2402.
441. Akinosoglou K, Apostolakis E, Koutsogiannis N, Leivaditis V, Gogos CA. Right-
sided infective endocarditis: surgical management. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;
42:470–479.
442. Moller JH, Anderson RC. 1,000 consecutive children with a cardiac malformation
with 26- to 37-year follow-up. Am J Cardiol 1992;70:661–667.
443. Niwa K, Nakazawa M, Tateno S, Yoshinaga M, Terai M. Infective endocarditis in
congenital heart disease: Japanese national collaboration study. Heart 2005;91:
795–800.
444. Verheugt CL, Uiterwaal CS, van der Velde ET, Meijboom FJ, Pieper PG, Veen G,
Stappers JL, Grobbee DE, Mulder BJ. Turning 18 with congenital heart disease:
prediction of infective endocarditis based on a large population. Eur Heart J
2011;32:1926–1934.
445. Rushani D, Kaufman JS, Ionescu-Ittu R, Mackie AS, Pilote L, Therrien J, Marelli AJ.
Infective endocarditis in children with congenital heart disease: cumulative inci-
dence and predictors. Circulation 2013;128:1412–1419.
446. Michel PL, Acar J. Native cardiac disease predisposing to infective endocarditis. Eur
Heart J 1995;16(Suppl B):2–6.
447. De Gevigney G, Pop C, Delahaye JP. The risk of infective endocarditis after cardiac
surgical and interventional procedures. Eur Heart J 1995;16(Suppl B):7–14.
448. Roder BL, Wandall DA, Espersen F, Frimodt-Moller N, Skinhoj P, Rosdahl VT.
Neurologic manifestations in Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: a review of 260
bacteremic cases in nondrug addicts. Am J Med 1997;102:379–386.
449. Baek JE, Park SJ, Woo SB, Choi JY, Jung JW, Kim NK. Changes in patient character-
istics of infective endocarditis with congenital heart disease: 25 years experience
in a single institution. Korean Circ J 2014;44:37–41.
ESC Guidelines 3123d
byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/guidlineendocarditis-160413163846/85/Guidline-endocarditis-53-320.jpg)
Guidline endocarditis
- 1. ESC GUIDELINES 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) Authors/Task Force Members: Gilbert Habib* (Chairperson) (France), Patrizio Lancellotti* (co-Chairperson) (Belgium), Manuel J. Antunes (Portugal), Maria Grazia Bongiorni (Italy), Jean-Paul Casalta (France), Francesco Del Zotti (Italy), Raluca Dulgheru (Belgium), Gebrine El Khoury (Belgium), Paola Anna Erbaa (Italy), Bernard Iung (France), Jose M. Mirob (Spain), Barbara J. Mulder (The Netherlands), Edyta Plonska-Gosciniak (Poland), Susanna Price (UK), Jolien Roos-Hesselink (The Netherlands), Ulrika Snygg-Martin (Sweden), Franck Thuny (France), Pilar Tornos Mas (Spain), Isidre Vilacosta (Spain), and Jose Luis Zamorano (Spain) Document Reviewers: Çetin Erol (CPG Review Coordinator) (Turkey), Petros Nihoyannopoulos (CPG Review Coordinator) (UK), Victor Aboyans (France), Stefan Agewall (Norway), George Athanassopoulos (Greece), Saide Aytekin (Turkey), Werner Benzer (Austria), He´ctor Bueno (Spain), Lidewij Broekhuizen (The Netherlands), Scipione Carerj (Italy), Bernard Cosyns (Belgium), Julie De Backer (Belgium), Michele De Bonis (Italy), Konstantinos Dimopoulos (UK), Erwan Donal (France), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Frank Arnold Flachskampf (Sweden), Roger Hall (UK), Sigrun Halvorsen (Norway), Bruno Hoenb (France), Paulus Kirchhof (UK/Germany), * Corresponding authors: Gilbert Habib, Service de Cardiologie, C.H.U. De La Timone, Bd Jean Moulin, 13005 Marseille, France, Tel: +33 4 91 38 75 88, Fax: +33 4 91 38 47 64, Email: gilbert.habib2@gmail.com Patrizio Lancellotti, University of Lie`ge Hospital, GIGA Cardiovascular Sciences, Departments of Cardiology, Heart Valve Clinic, CHU Sart Tilman, Lie`ge, Belgium – GVM Care and Research, E.S. Health Science Foundation, Lugo (RA), Italy, Tel: +3243667196, Fax: +3243667194, Email: plancellotti@chu.ulg.ac.be ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) and National Cardiac Societies document reviewers: listed in the Appendix ESC entities having participated in the development of this document: ESC Associations: Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA), European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Heart Failure Association (HFA). ESC Councils: Council for Cardiology Practice (CCP), Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (CCNAP), Council on Cardiovascular Primary Care (CCPC). ESC Working Groups: Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy, Cardiovascular Surgery, Grown-up Congenital Heart Disease, Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases, Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function, Thrombosis, Valvular Heart Disease. The content of these European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines has been published for personal and educational use only. No commercial use is authorized. No part of the ESC Guidelines may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from the ESC. Permission can be obtained upon submission of a written request to Oxford Uni- versity Press, the publisher of the European Heart Journal and the party authorized to handle such permissions on behalf of the ESC. Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recom- mendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encour- aged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient’s caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient’s case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription. & The European Society of Cardiology 2015. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. European Heart Journal (2015) 36, 3075–3123 doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv319 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 2. Mitja Lainscak (Slovenia), Adelino F. Leite-Moreira (Portugal), Gregory Y.H. Lip (UK), Carlos A. Mestresc (Spain/United Arab Emirates), Massimo F. Piepoli (Italy), Prakash P. Punjabi (UK), Claudio Rapezzi (Italy), Raphael Rosenhek (Austria), Kaat Siebens (Belgium), Juan Tamargo (Spain), and David M. Walker (UK) The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these guidelines are available on the ESC website http://www.escardio.org/guidelines. a Representing the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM); b Representing the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID); and c Representing the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Online publish-ahead-of-print 29 August 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keywords Endocarditis † Cardiac imaging † Valve disease † Echocardiography † Prognosis † Guidelines † Infection † Nuclear imaging † Cardiac surgery † Cardiac device † Prosthetic heart valves † Congenital heart disease † Pregnancy † Prophylaxis † Prevention Table of Contents Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3077 1. Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3078 2. Justification/scope of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3079 3. Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3079 3.1 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3079 3.2 Population at risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3080 3.3 Situations and procedures at risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3081 3.3.1 Dental procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3081 3.3.2 Other at-risk procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3081 3.4 Prophylaxis for dental procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3081 3.5 Prophylaxis for non-dental procedures . . . . . . . . . . . .3082 3.5.1 Respiratory tract procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3082 3.5.2 Gastrointestinal or genitourinary procedures . . . . .3082 3.5.3 Dermatological or musculoskeletal procedures . . . .3082 3.5.4 Body piercing and tattooing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3082 3.5.5 Cardiac or vascular interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . .3082 3.5.6 Healthcare-associated infective endocarditis . . . . . .3082 4. The ‘Endocarditis Team’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3083 5. Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3084 5.1 Clinical features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3084 5.2 Laboratory findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3084 5.3 Imaging techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3084 5.3.1 Echocardiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3084 5.3.2 Multislice computed tomography . . . . . . . . . . . . .3086 5.3.3 Magnetic resonance imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3087 5.3.4 Nuclear imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3087 5.4 Microbiological diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3087 5.4.1 Blood culture–positive infective endocarditis . . . . .3087 5.4.2 Blood culture–negative infective endocarditis . . . . .3088 5.4.3 Histological diagnosis of infective endocarditis . . . .3088 5.4.4 Proposed strategy for a microbiological diagnostic algorithm in suspected IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3088 5.5 Diagnostic criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3089 6. Prognostic assessment at admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3090 7. Antimicrobial therapy: principles and methods . . . . . . . . . . .3091 7.1 General principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3091 7.2 Penicillin-susceptible oral streptococci and Streptococcus bovis group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3092 7.3 Penicillin-resistant oral streptococci and Streptococcus bovis group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3092 7.4 Streptococcus pneumoniae, beta-haemolytic streptococci (groups A, B, C, and G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3092 7.5 Granulicatella and Abiotrophia (formerly nutritionally variant streptococci) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3094 7.6 Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3094 7.7 Methicillin-resistant and vancomycin-resistant staphylococci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3094 7.8 Enterococcus spp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3094 7.9 Gram-negative bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3096 7.9.1 HACEK-related species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3096 7.9.2 Non-HACEK species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3097 7.10 Blood culture–negative infective endocarditis . . . . . . .3097 7.11 Fungi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3097 7.12 Empirical therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3097 7.13 Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy for infective endocarditis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3098 8. Main complications of left-sided valve infective endocarditis and their management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3099 8.1 Heart failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3099 8.1.1 Heart failure in infective endocarditis . . . . . . . . . .3099 8.1.2 Indications and timing of surgery in the presence of heart failure in infective endocarditis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3100 8.2 Uncontrolled infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3100 8.2.1 Persisting infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3100 8.2.2 Perivalvular extension in infective endocarditis . . . .3100 8.2.3 Indications and timing of surgery in the presence of uncontrolled infection in infective endocarditis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3101 8.2.3.1 Persistent infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3101 8.2.3.2 Signs of locally uncontrolled infection . . . . . . .3101 8.2.3.3 Infection by microorganisms at low likelihood of being controlled by antimicrobial therapy . . . . . . . . . .3101 8.3 Prevention of systemic embolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3101 8.3.1 Embolic events in infective endocarditis . . . . . . . . .3101 8.3.2 Predicting the risk of embolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3101 ESC Guidelines3076 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 3. 8.3.3 Indications and timing of surgery to prevent embolism in infective endocarditis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3101 9. Other complications of infective endocarditis . . . . . . . . . . .3102 9.1 Neurological complications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3102 9.2 Infectious aneurysms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3103 9.3 Splenic complications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3103 9.4 Myocarditis and pericarditis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3104 9.5 Heart rhythm and conduction disturbances . . . . . . . . .3104 9.6 Musculoskeletal manifestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3104 9.7 Acute renal failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3104 10. Surgical therapy: principles and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3105 10.1 Operative risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3105 10.2 Preoperative and perioperative management . . . . . . .3105 10.2.1 Coronary angiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3105 10.2.2 Extracardiac infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3105 10.2.3 Intraoperative echocardiography . . . . . . . . . . . .3105 10.3 Surgical approach and techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3105 10.4 Postoperative complications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3106 11. Outcome after discharge: follow-up and long-term prognosis 3106 11.1 Recurrences: relapses and reinfections . . . . . . . . . . .3106 11.2 Short-term follow-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3107 11.3 Long-term prognosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3107 12. Management of specific situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3107 12.1 Prosthetic valve endocarditis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3107 12.1.1 Definition and pathophysiology . . . . . . . . . . . . .3107 12.1.2 Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3107 12.1.3 Prognosis and treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3108 12.2 Infective endocarditis affecting cardiac implantable electronic devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3108 12.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3108 12.2.2 Definitions of cardiac device infections . . . . . . . .3108 12.2.3 Pathophysiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3108 12.2.4 Risk factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3109 12.2.5 Microbiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3109 12.2.6 Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3109 12.2.7 Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3109 12.2.8 Antimicrobial therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3109 12.2.9 Complete hardware removal (device and lead extraction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3109 12.2.10 Reimplantation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3110 12.2.11 Prophylaxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3110 12.3 Infective endocarditis in the intensive care unit . . . . . .3111 12.3.1 Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3111 12.3.2 Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3111 12.3.3 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3111 12.4 Right-sided infective endocarditis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3111 12.4.1 Diagnosis and complications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3112 12.4.2 Prognosis and treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3112 12.4.2.1 Antimicrobial therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3112 12.4.2.2 Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3112 12.5 Infective endocarditis in congenital heart disease . . . . .3113 12.6 Infective endocarditis during pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . .3113 12.7 Antithrombotic therapy in infective endocarditis . . . . .3114 12.8 Non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis and endocarditis associated with cancers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3114 12.8.1 Non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis . . . . . . . .3114 12.8.2 Infective endocarditis associated with cancer . . . .3115 13. To do and not to do messages from the guidelines . . . . . . .3115 14. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3116 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3117 Abbreviations and acronyms 3D three-dimensional AIDS acquired immune deficiency syndrome b.i.d. bis in die (twice daily) BCNIE blood culture-negative infective endocarditis CDRIE cardiac device-related infective endocarditis CHD congenital heart disease CIED cardiac implantable electronic device CoNS coagulase-negative staphylococci CPG Committee for Practice Guidelines CRP C-reactive protein CT computed tomography E. Enterococcus ESC European Society of Cardiology ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate EuroSCORE European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation FDG fluorodeoxyglucose HF heart failure HIV human immunodeficiency virus HLAR high-level aminoglycoside resistance i.m. intramuscular i.v. intravenous ICE International Collaboration on Endocarditis ICU intensive care unit ID infectious disease IE infective endocarditis Ig immunoglobulin IVDA intravenous drug abuser MIC minimum inhibitory concentration MR magnetic resonance MRI magnetic resonance imaging MRSA methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus MSCT multislice computed tomography MSSA methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus NBTE non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NVE native valve endocarditis OPAT outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy PBP penicillin binding protein PCR polymerase chain reaction PET positron emission tomography PVE prosthetic valve endocarditis SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment SPECT single-photon emission computed tomography TOE transoesophageal echocardiography TTE transthoracic echocardiography WBC white blood cell ESC Guidelines 3077 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 4. 1. Preamble Guidelines summarize and evaluate all available evidence on a par- ticular issue at the time of the writing process, with the aim of assist- ing health professionals in selecting the best management strategies for an individual patient with a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particu- lar diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines and recommenda- tions should help health professionals to make decisions in their daily practice. However, the final decisions concerning an individual patient must be made by the responsible health professional(s) in consultation with the patient and caregiver as appropriate. A great number of Guidelines have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) as well as by other soci- eties and organisations. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for the development of guidelines have been estab- lished in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The re- commendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines can be found on the ESC website (http://www.escardio.org/Guidelines- &-Education/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines/Guidelines-development/ Writing-ESC-Guidelines). ESC Guidelines represent the official pos- ition of the ESC on a given topic and are regularly updated. Members of this Task Force were selected by the ESC to re- present professionals involved with the medical care of patients with this pathology. Selected experts in the field undertook a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management (including diagnosis, treatment, prevention and rehabilitation) of a given condition according to ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) policy. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger populations were included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation of particular management options were weighed and graded according to prede- fined scales, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2. The experts of the writing and reviewing panels provided declara- tions of interest forms for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These forms were compiled into one file and can be found on the ESC website (http:// www.escardio.org/guidelines). Any changes in declarations of inter- est that arise during the writing period must be notified to the ESC and updated. The Task Force received its entire financial support from the ESC without any involvement from the healthcare industry. The ESC CPG supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines produced by task forces, expert groups or consensus pa- nels. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement pro- cess of these Guidelines. The ESC Guidelines undergo extensive review by the CPG and external experts. After appropriate revi- sions the Guidelines are approved by all the experts involved in the Task Force. The finalized document is approved by the CPG for publication in the European Heart Journal. The Guidelines were developed after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their dating. The task of developing ESC Guidelines covers not only integra- tion of the most recent research, but also the creation of education- al tools and implementation programmes for the recommendations. To implement the guidelines, condensed pocket guidelines versions, summary slides, booklets with essential messages, summary cards for non-specialists, and an electronic version for digital applications (smartphones, etc.) are produced. These versions are abridged and thus, if needed, one should always refer to the full text version, which is freely available on the ESC website. The National Societies of the ESC are encouraged to endorse, translate and implement all ESC Guidelines. Implementation programmes are needed because it Table 1 Classes of recommendations Classes of recommendations Suggested wording to use Class I Evidence and/or general agreement that a given treatment or procedure is beneficial, useful, effective. Is recommended/is indicated Class II divergence of opinion about the Conflicting evidence and/or a usefulness/efficacy of the given favour of usefulness/efficacy. Usefulness/efficacy is less well treatment or procedure. Class IIa Weight of evidence/opinion is in Should be considered Class IIb established by evidence/opinion. May be considered Class III Evidence or general agreement that the given treatment or procedure is not useful/effective, and in some cases may be harmful. Is not recommended ESC Guidelines3078 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 5. has been shown that the outcome of disease may be favourably in- fluenced by the thorough application of clinical recommendations. Surveys and registries are needed to verify that real-life daily prac- tice is in keeping with what is recommended in the guidelines, thus completing the loop between clinical research, writing of guidelines, disseminating them and implementing them into clinical practice. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnos- tic or therapeutic medical strategies. However, the ESC Guidelines do not override in any way whatsoever the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consult- ation with that patient and the patient’s caregiver where appropriate and/or necessary. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription. 2. Justification/scope of the problem Infective endocarditis (IE) is a deadly disease.1,2 Despite improve- ments in its management, IE remains associated with high mortality and severe complications. Until recently, guidelines on IE were mostly based on expert opinion because of the low incidence of the disease, the absence of randomized trials and the limited num- ber of meta-analyses.3– 7 The 2009 ESC Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treat- ment of IE8 introduced several innovative concepts, including limita- tion of antibiotic prophylaxis to the highest-risk patients, a focus on healthcare-associated IE and identification of the optimal timing for surgery. However, several reasons justify the decision of the ESC to update the previous guidelines: the publication of new large series of IE, including the first randomized study regarding surgical therapy;9 important improvements in imaging procedures,10 particularly in the field of nuclear imaging; and discrepancies between previous guide- lines.5– 8 In addition, the need for a collaborative approach involving primary care physicians, cardiologists, surgeons, microbiologists, infectious disease (ID) specialists and frequently other specialists— namely the ‘Endocarditis Team’—has been underlined recently11,12 and will be developed in these new guidelines. The main objective of the current Task Force was to provide clear and simple recommendations, assisting healthcare providers in their clinical decision making. These recommendations were obtained by expert consensus after thorough review of the available literature. An evidence-based scoring system was used, based on a classifica- tion of the strength of recommendations and the levels of evidence. 3. Prevention 3.1 Rationale The principle of antibiotic prophylaxis for IE was developed on the basis of observational studies and animal models and aimed at pre- venting the attachment of bacteria onto the endocardium after tran- sient bacteraemia following invasive procedures. This concept led to the recommendation for antibiotic prophylaxis in a large number of patients with predisposing cardiac conditions undergoing a wide range of procedures.13 The restriction of indications for antibiotic prophylaxis was in- itiated in 2002 because of changes in pathophysiological concep- tions and risk–benefit analyses as follows:14 † Low-grade but repeated bacteraemia occurs more frequently dur- ing daily routine activities such as toothbrushing, flossing or chew- ing, and even more frequently in patients with poor dental health.15 The accountability of low-grade bacteraemia was demonstrated in an animal model.16 The risk of IE may therefore be related more to cumulative low-grade bacteraemia during daily life rather than spor- adic high-grade bacteraemia after dental procedures. † Most case–control studies did not report an association between invasive dental procedures and the occurrence of IE.17 – 19 † The estimated risk of IE following dental procedures is very low. Antibiotic prophylaxis may therefore avoid only a small number of IE cases, as shown by estimations of 1 case of IE per 150 000 dental procedures with antibiotics and 1 per 46 000 for proce- dures unprotected by antibiotics.20 † Antibiotic administration carries a small risk of anaphylaxis, which may become significant in the event of widespread use. However, the lethal risk of anaphylaxis seems very low when using oral amoxicillin.21 † Widespread use of antibiotics may result in the emergence of resistant microorganisms.13 † The efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis on bacteraemia and the oc- currence of IE has only been proven in animal models. The effect on bacteraemia in humans is controversial.15 † No prospective randomized controlled trial has investigated the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis on the occurrence of IE and it is unlikely that such a trial will be conducted given the number of subjects needed.22 These points have been progressively taken into account in most guidelines, including the 2009 ESC guidelines,5,8,23 – 26 and led to the restriction of antibiotic prophylaxis to the highest-risk patients (patients with the highest incidence of IE and/or highest risk of adverse outcome from IE). In 2008 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines went a step further and advised against any anti- biotic prophylaxis for dental and non-dental procedures whatever Table 2 Levels of evidence Level of evidence A Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses. Level of evidence B Data derived from a single randomized clinical trial or large non-randomized studies. Level of evidence C Consensus of opinion of the experts and/ or small studies, retrospective studies, registries. ESC Guidelines 3079 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 6. the patient’s risk.27 The authors concluded there was an absence of benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis, which was also highly cost- ineffective. These conclusions have been challenged since estima- tions of the risks of IE are based on low levels of evidence due to multiple extrapolations.28,29 Four epidemiological studies have analysed the incidence of IE fol- lowing restricted indications for antibiotic prophylaxis. The analysis of 2000–2010 national hospital discharge codes in the UK did not show an increase in the incidence of streptococcal IE after the re- lease of NICE guidelines in 2008.30 The restriction of antibiotic prophylaxis was seen in a 78% decrease in antibiotic prescriptions before dental care. However, residual prescriptions raised concerns regarding a persisting use of antibiotic prophylaxis. A survey performed in 2012 in the UK showed that the majority of cardiolo- gists and cardiac surgeons felt that antibiotic prophylaxis was necessary in patients with valve prosthesis or prior IE.31 Recently an analysis of UK data collected from 2000 to 2013 showed a signifi- cant increase in the incidence of IE in both high-risk and lower-risk patients in the UK starting in 2008.32 However, this temporal relation- ship should not be interpreted as a direct consequence of the NICE guidelines. These findings may be influenced by confounding factors, in particular changes in the number of patients at risk of hospitaliza- tions and healthcare-associated IE. Moreover, microbiological data were not available. Thus we cannot know whether that increase is due to the microbiological species covered by antibiotic prophylaxis. A repeated prospective 1-year population-based French survey did not show an increase in the incidence of IE, in particular strepto- coccal IE, between 1999 and 2008, whereas antibiotic prophylaxis had been restricted for native valve disease since 2002.33 Two studies from the USA did not find a negative impact of the abandonment of antibiotic prophylaxis in native valve disease in the 2007 American Heart Association guidelines.34,35 A more recent analysis on an administrative database found an increase in the inci- dence of IE hospitalizations between 2000 and 2011, with no signifi- cant change after the change of American guidelines in 2007.36 The increase in IE incidence was observed for all types of microorgan- isms, but was significant for streptococci after 2007.36 It was not sta- ted whether this was due to oral streptococci and if intermediate- or high-risk patients were involved. The present guidelines maintain the principle of antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients for the following reasons: † The remaining uncertainties regarding estimations of the risk of IE, which play an important role in the rationale of NICE guidelines. † The worse prognosis of IE in high-risk patients, in particular those with prosthetic IE. † The fact that high-risk patients account for a much smaller num- ber than patients at intermediate risk, thereby reducing potential harm due to adverse events of antibiotic prophylaxis. 3.2 Population at risk Patients with the highest risk of IE can be placed in three categories (Table 3): (1) Patients with a prosthetic valve or with prosthetic material used for cardiac valve repair: these patients have a higher risk of IE, a higher mortality from IE and more often develop complications of the disease than patients with native valves and an identical pathogen.37 This also applies to transcatheter-implanted pros- theses and homografts. (2) Patients with previous IE: they also have a greater risk of new IE, higher mortality and higher incidence of complications than pa- tients with a first episode of IE.38 (3) Patients with untreated cyanotic congenital heart disease (CHD) and those with CHD who have postoperative palliative shunts, conduits or other prostheses.39,40 After surgical repair with no residual defects, the Task Force recommends prophy- laxis for the first 6 months after the procedure until endothelia- lisation of the prosthetic material has occurred. Although American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend prophylaxis in cardiac transplant recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy, this is not supported by strong evidence5,25,41 and is not recommended by the ESC Task Force. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at intermediate risk of IE, i.e. any other form of native valve disease (including the most commonly identified conditions: bicuspid aortic valve, mitral valve prolapse and calcific aortic stenosis). Nevertheless, both intermediate- and high-risk patients should be advised of the importance of dental and cutaneous hygiene13 (Table 4). These measures of general hygiene apply to patients and healthcare workers and should ideally be applied to the general population, as IE frequently occurs without known cardiac disease. Table 3 Cardiac conditions at highest risk of infective endocarditis for which prophylaxis should be considered when a high-risk procedure is performed Recommendations Classa Levelb Antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered for patients at highest risk for IE: (1) Patients with any prosthetic valve, including a transcatheter valve, or those in whom any prosthetic material was used for cardiac valve repair. (2) Patients with a previous episode of IE. (3) Patients with CHD: (a) Any type of cyanotic CHD. (b) Any type of CHD repaired with a prosthetic material, whether placed surgically or by percutaneous techniques, up to 6 months after the procedure or lifelong if residual shunt or valvular regurgitation remains. IIa C Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended in other forms of valvular or CHD. III C CHD ¼ congenital heart disease; IE ¼ infective endocarditis. a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. c Reference(s) supporting recommendations. ESC Guidelines3080 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 7. 3.3 Situations and procedures at risk 3.3.1 Dental procedures At-risk procedures involve manipulation of the gingival or periapical region of the teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa (including scal- ing and root canal procedures) (Table 5).15,20 The use of dental im- plants raises concerns with regard to potential risk due to foreign material at the interface between the buccal cavity and blood. Very few data are available.42 The opinion of the Task Force is that there is no evidence to contraindicate implants in all patients at risk. The indication should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. The patient should be informed of the uncertainties and the need for close follow-up. 3.3.2 Other at-risk procedures There is no compelling evidence that bacteraemia resulting from re- spiratory tract procedures, gastrointestinal or genitourinary proce- dures, including vaginal and caesarean delivery, or dermatological or musculoskeletal procedures causes IE (Table 5). 3.4 Prophylaxis for dental procedures Antibiotic prophylaxis should only be considered for patients at highest risk for endocarditis, as described in Table 3, undergoing at- risk dental procedures listed in Table 5, and is not recommended in other situations. The main targets for antibiotic prophylaxis in these patients are oral streptococci. Table 6 summarizes the main regimens of antibiotic prophylaxis recommended before dental procedures. Fluoroquinolones and glycopeptides are not recommended due to their unclear efficacy and the potential induction of resistance. Table 5 Recommendations for prophylaxis of infective endocarditis in the highest-risk patients according to the type of at-risk procedure Recommendations Classa Levelb A. Dental procedures † Antibiotic prophylaxis should only be considered for dental procedures requiring manipulation of the gingival or periapical region of the teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa IIa C † Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for local anaesthetic injections in non-infected tissues, treatment of superficial caries, removal of sutures, dental X-rays, placement or adjustment of removable prosthodontic or orthodontic appliances or braces or following the shedding of deciduous teeth or trauma to the lips and oral mucosa III C Continued Table 4 Non-specific prevention measures to be followed in high-risk and intermediate-risk patients These measures should ideally be applied to the general population and particularly reinforced in high-risk patients: • Strict dental and cutaneous hygiene. Dental follow-up should be performed twice a year in high-risk patients and yearly in the others. • Disinfection of wounds. • Eradication or decrease of chronic bacterial carriage: skin, urine. • Curative antibiotics for any focus of bacterial infection. • No self-medication with antibiotics. • Strict infection control measures for any at-risk procedure. • Discourage piercing and tattooing. • Limit the use of infusion catheters and invasive procedure when possible. Favour peripheral over central catheters, and systematic replacement of the peripheral catheter every 3–4 days. Strict adherence to care bundles for central and peripheral cannulae should be performed. Table 5 Continued Recommendations Classa Levelb B. Respiratory tract proceduresc † Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for respiratory tract procedures, including bronchoscopy or laryngoscopy, or transnasal or endotracheal intubation III C C. Gastrointestinal or urogenital procedures or TOEc † Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for gastroscopy, colonoscopy, cystoscopy, vaginal or caesarean delivery or TOE III C D. Skin and soft tissue proceduresc † Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for any procedure III C TOE ¼ transoesophageal echocardiography. a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. c For management when infections are present, please refer to Section 3.5.3. Table 6 Recommended prophylaxis for high-risk dental procedures in high-risk patients Situation Antibiotic Single-dose 30–60 minutes before procedure Adults Children No allergy to penicillin or ampicillin Amoxicillin or ampicillina 2 g orally or i.v. 50 mg/kg orally or i.v. Allergy to penicillin or ampicillin Clindamycin 600 mg orally or i.v. 20 mg/kg orally or i.v. a Alternatively, cephalexin 2 g i.v. for adults or 50 mg/kg i.v. for children, cefazolin or ceftriaxone 1 g i.v. for adults or 50 mg/kg i.v. for children. Cephalosporins should not be used in patients with anaphylaxis, angio-oedema, or urticaria after intake of penicillin or ampicillin due to cross-sensitivity. ESC Guidelines 3081 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 8. Cephalosporins should not be used in patients with anaphylaxis, angio-oedema or urticaria after intake of penicillin or ampicillin due to cross-sensitivity. 3.5 Prophylaxis for non-dental procedures Systematic antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for non- dental procedures. Antibiotic therapy is only needed when invasive procedures are performed in the context of infection. 3.5.1 Respiratory tract procedures Patients listed in Table 3 who undergo an invasive respiratory tract procedure to treat an established infection (i.e. drainage of an ab- scess) should receive an antibiotic regimen that contains an anti- staphylococcal drug. 3.5.2 Gastrointestinal or genitourinary procedures In the case of an established infection or if antibiotic therapy is in- dicated to prevent wound infection or sepsis associated with a gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract procedure in patients de- scribed in Table 3, it is reasonable that the antibiotic regimen in- cludes an agent active against enterococci (i.e. ampicillin, amoxicillin or vancomycin; only in patients unable to tolerate beta- lactams). The use of intrauterine devices was regarded as contra- indicated, but this was based on low levels of evidence. Use of an intrauterine device is now considered acceptable, in particular when other contraceptive methods are not possible and in women at low risk of genital infections.43 3.5.3 Dermatological or musculoskeletal procedures For patients described in Table 3 undergoing surgical procedures involving infected skin (including oral abscesses), skin structure or musculoskeletal tissue, it is reasonable that the therapeutic regimen contains an agent active against staphylococci and beta-haemolytic streptococci. 3.5.4 Body piercing and tattooing These growing societal trends are a cause for concern, particularly for individuals with CHD who are at increased susceptibility for the acquisition of IE. Case reports of IE after piercing and tattooing are increasing, particularly when piercing involves the tongue,44 al- though publication bias may over- or underestimate the problem. Currently no data are available on the incidence of IE after such pro- cedures and the efficacy of antibiotics for prevention. Education of patients at risk of IE is paramount. They should be informed about the hazards of piercing and tattooing and these procedures should be discouraged not only in high-risk patients, but also in those with native valve disease. If undertaken, procedures should be performed under strictly sterile conditions, though antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended. 3.5.5 Cardiac or vascular interventions In patients undergoing implantation of a prosthetic valve, any type of prosthetic graft or pacemakers, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered due to the increased risk and adverse outcome of an infection45 – 49 (Table 7). The most frequent microor- ganisms underlying early (1 year after surgery) prosthetic valve infections are coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and Staphylococcus aureus. Prophylaxis should be started immediately be- fore the procedure, repeated if the procedure is prolonged and ter- minated 48 h afterwards. A randomized trial has shown the efficacy of 1 g intravenous (i.v.) cefazolin on the prevention of local and sys- temic infections before pacemaker implantation.45 Preoperative screening of nasal carriage of S. aureus is recommended before elect- ive cardiac surgery in order to treat carriers using local mupirocin and chlorhexidine.46,47 Rapid identification techniques using gene amplification are useful to avoid delaying urgent surgery. Systematic local treatment without screening is not recommended. It is strongly recommended that potential sources of dental sepsis should be eliminated at least 2 weeks before implantation of a prosthetic valve or other intracardiac or intravascular foreign material, unless the lat- ter procedure is urgent.48 3.5.6 Healthcare-associated infective endocarditis Healthcare-associated IE represents up to 30% of all cases of IE and is characterized by an increasing incidence and a severe prognosis, thus presenting an important health problem.50,51 Although routine antimicrobial prophylaxis administered before most invasive Table 7 Recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of local and systemic infections before cardiac or vascular interventions Recommendations Classa Levelb Ref.c Preoperative screening of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus is recommended before elective cardiac surgery in order to treat carriers I A 46,47 Perioperative prophylaxis is recommended before placement of a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator I B 45 Potential sources of sepsis should be eliminated ≥2 weeks before implantation of a prosthetic valve or other intracardiac or intravascular foreign material, except in urgent procedures IIa C Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered in patients undergoing surgical or transcatheter implantation of a prosthetic valve, intravascular prosthetic or other foreign material IIa C Systematic local treatment without screening of S. aureus is not recommended III C a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. c Reference(s) supporting recommendations. ESC Guidelines3082 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 9. procedures is not recommended, aseptic measures during the inser- tion and manipulation of venous catheters and during any invasive procedures, including in outpatients, are mandatory to reduce the rate of this healthcare-associated IE.52 In summary, these guidelines propose continuing to limit antibiot- ic prophylaxis to patients at high risk of IE undergoing the highest-risk dental procedures. They highlight the importance of hygiene measures, in particular oral and cutaneous hygiene. Epi- demiological changes are marked by an increase in IE due to staphylococcus and of healthcare-associated IE, thereby high- lighting the importance of non-specific infection control mea- sures.51,53 This should concern not only high-risk patients, but should also be part of routine care in all patients since IE occur- ring in patients without previously known heart disease now ac- counts for a substantial and increasing incidence. This means that although antibiotic prophylaxis should be restricted to the highest-risk patients, preventive measures should be maintained or extended to all patients with cardiac disease. Although this section of the guidelines on IE prophylaxis is based on weak evidence, they have been strengthened recently by epidemiological surveys, most of which did not show an in- creased incidence of IE due to oral streptococci.33 – 35 Their ap- plication by patients should follow a shared decision-making process. Future challenges are to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms associated with valve infection, the adaptation of prophylaxis to the ongoing epidemiological changes and the performance of specific prospective surveys on the incidence and characteristics of IE. 4. The ‘Endocarditis Team’ IE is a disease that needs a collaborative approach for the following reasons: † First, IE is not a single disease, but rather may present with very different aspects depending on the first organ involved, the underlying cardiac disease (if any), the microorganism involved, the presence or absence of complications and the patient’s char- acteristics.8 No single practitioner will be able to manage and treat a patient in whom the main clinical symptoms might be car- diac, rheumatological, infectious, neurological or other. † Second, a very high level of expertise is needed from practitioners from several specialties, including cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, ID specialists, microbiologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, ex- perts in CHD and others. Echocardiography is known to have a major importance in the diagnosis and management of IE. How- ever, other imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance im- aging (MRI), multislice computed tomography (MSCT), and nuclear imaging, have also been shown to be useful for diagnosis, follow-up and decision making in patients with IE.10 Including all of these specialists in the team is becoming increasingly important. † Finally, about half of the patients with IE undergo surgery during the hospital course.54 Early discussion with the surgical team is important and is considered mandatory in all cases of compli- cated IE [i.e. endocarditis with heart failure (HF), abscess or em- bolic or neurological complications]. Therefore the presence of an Endocarditis Team is crucial. This multidisciplinary approach has already been shown to be useful in the management of valve disease11 (the ‘Heart Valve Clinic’), particularly in the selection of patients for transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures (‘Heart Team’ approach).55 In the field of IE, the team approach adopted in France, including standardized medical therapy, surgical indications following guideline recommen- dations and 1 year of close follow-up, has been shown to significant- ly reduce the 1-year mortality, from 18.5% to 8.2%.12 Other authors have recently reported similar results.56 Taking these reports to- gether, such a team approach has been recommended recently as class IB in the 2014 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease.25 The present Task Force on the management of IE of the ESC strongly supports the management of patients with IE in refer- ence centres by a specialized team (the ‘Endocarditis Team’). The main characteristics of the Endocarditis Team and the referring indications are summarized in Tables 8 and 9. Table 8 Characteristics of the ‘Endocarditis Team’ When to refer a patient with IE to an ‘Endocarditis Team’ in a reference centre 1. Patients with complicated IE (i.e. endocarditis with HF, abscess, or embolic or neurological complication or CHD), should be referred early and managed in a reference centre with immediate surgical facilities. 2. Patients with non-complicated IE can be initially managed in a non- reference centre, but with regular communication with the reference centre,consultations with the multidisciplinary‘EndocarditisTeam’,and, when needed,with external visit to the reference centre. Characteristics of the reference centre 1. Immediate access to diagnostic procedures should be possible, includingTTE,TOE,multislice CT,MRI,and nuclear imaging. 2. Immediate access to cardiac surgery should be possible during the early stage of the disease, particularly in case of complicated IE (HF, abscess,large vegetation,neurological,and embolic complications). 3. Several specialists should be present on site (the ‘Endocarditis Team’), including at least cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, anaesthesiologists, ID specialists, microbiologists and, when available, specialists in valve diseases, CHD, pacemaker extraction, echocardiography and other cardiac imaging techniques, neurologists, and facilities for neurosurgery and interventional neuroradiology . Role of the ‘Endocarditis Team’ 1. The ‘Endocarditis Team’ should have meetings on a regular basis in order to discuss cases, take surgical decisions, and define the type of follow-up. 2. The ‘Endocarditis Team’ chooses the type, duration, and mode of follow up of antibiotic therapy, according to a standardized protocol, following the current guidelines. 3. The ‘EndocarditisTeam’ should participate in national or international registries, publicly report the mortality and morbidity of their centre, and be involved in a quality improvement programme, as well as in a patient education programme. 4. The follow-up should be organized on an outpatient visit basis at a frequency depending on the patient’s clinical status (ideally at 1, 3, 6,and 12 months after hospital discharge,since the majority of events occur during this period57 ). CHD ¼ Congenital heart disease; CT ¼ computed tomography; HF ¼ heart failure; ID ¼ Infectious disease; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; MRI ¼ magnetic resonance imaging; TOE ¼ transoesophageal echocardiography; TTE ¼ transthoracic echocardiography. ESC Guidelines 3083 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 10. 5. Diagnosis 5.1 Clinical features The diverse nature and evolving epidemiological profile of IE ensure that it remains a diagnostic challenge. The clinical history of IE is highly variable according to the causative microorganism, the pres- ence or absence of pre-existing cardiac disease, the presence or ab- sence of prosthetic valves or cardiac devices and the mode of presentation. Thus IE should be suspected in a variety of very differ- ent clinical situations. It may present as an acute, rapidly progressive infection, but also as a subacute or chronic disease with low-grade fever and non-specific symptoms that may mislead or confuse initial assessment. Patients may therefore present to a variety of specialists who may consider a range of alternative diagnoses, including chronic infection; rheumatological, neurological and autoimmune diseases; or malignancy. The early involvement of a cardiologist and an ID specialist to guide management is highly recommended. Up to 90% of patients present with fever, often associated with sys- temic symptoms of chills, poor appetite and weight loss. Heart mur- murs are found in up to 85% of patients. Up to 25% of patients have embolic complications at the time of diagnosis. Therefore IE has to be suspected in any patient presenting with fever and embolic phenom- ena. Classic signs may still be seen in the developing world in subacute forms of IE, although peripheral stigmata of IE are increasingly uncom- mon elsewhere, as patients generally present at an early stage of the disease. However, vascular and immunological phenomena such as splinter haemorrhages, Roth spots and glomerulonephritis remain common. Emboli to the brain, lung or spleen occur in 30% of patients and are often the presenting feature.58 In a febrile patient, diagnostic suspicion may be strengthened by laboratory signs of infection, such as elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), leucocytosis, anaemia and microscopic haematuria. However, these signs lack specificity and have not been integrated into current diagnostic criteria. Atypical presentation is common in elderly or immunocompromised patients,59 in whom fever is less common than in younger individuals. A high index of suspicion and low threshold for investigation are therefore essential in these and other high-risk groups, such as those with CHD or prosthetic valves, to exclude IE or avoid delays in diagnosis. 5.2 Laboratory findings In addition to specialized microbiological and imaging investigations, a number of laboratory investigations and biomarkers have been evaluated in sepsis/sepsis syndromes and endocarditis. The large number of proposed potential biomarkers reflects the complex pathophysiology of the disease process, involving pro- and anti- inflammatory processes, humoral and cellular reactions and both circulatory and end-organ abnormalities.60 However, owing to their poor positive predictive value for the diagnosis of sepsis and lack of specificity for endocarditis, these biomarkers have been excluded from being major diagnostic criteria and are only used to facilitate risk stratification. Sepsis severity may be indicated by the demonstration of a number of laboratory investigations, including the degree of leucocytosis/leu- copoenia, the number of immature white cell forms, concentrations of CRP and procalcitonin, ESR and markers of end-organ dysfunction (lactataemia, elevated bilirubin, thrombocytopaenia and changes in serum creatinine concentration); however, none are diagnostic for IE.61 Further, certain laboratory investigations are used in surgical scoring systems relevant to risk stratification in patients with IE, in- cluding bilirubin, creatinine and platelet count [Sequential Organ Fail- ure Assessment (SOFA) score] and creatinine clearance [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II]. Final- ly, the pattern of increase in inflammatory mediators or immune complexes may support, but not prove, the diagnosis of IE, including the finding of hypocomplementaemia in the presence of elevated antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody in endocarditis-associated vas- culitis or, where lead infection is suspected clinically, the laboratory finding of a normal procalcitonin and white cell count in the presence of significantly elevated CRP and/or ESR.62 5.3 Imaging techniques Imaging, particularly echocardiography, plays a key role in both the diagnosis and management of IE. Echocardiography is also useful for the prognostic assessment of patients with IE, for its follow-up under therapy and during and after surgery.63 Echocardiography is particularly useful for initial assessment of the embolic risk and in decision making in IE. Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) plays a major role both before and during surgery (intraoperative echocardiography). However, the evaluation of patients with IE is no longer limited to conventional echocardiography, but should include several other imaging techniques such as MSCT, MRI, 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) or other functional imaging modalities.10 5.3.1 Echocardiography Echocardiography, either transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) or TOE, is the technique of choice for the diagnosis of IE, and plays a Table 9 Recommendations for referring patients to the reference centre Recommendations Classa Levelb Ref.c Patients with complicated IE should be evaluated and managed at an early stage in a reference centre, with immediate surgical facilities and the presence of a multidisciplinary ‘Endocarditis Team’, including an ID specialist, a microbiologist, a cardiologist, imaging specialists, a cardiac surgeon and, if needed, a specialist in CHD IIa B 12,56 For patients with uncomplicated IE managed in a non-reference centre, early and regular communication with the reference centre and, when needed, visits to the reference centre should be made IIa B 12,56 CHD ¼ congenital heart disease; ID ¼ infectious disease; IE ¼ infective endocarditis. a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. c Reference(s) supporting recommendations. ESC Guidelines3084 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 11. key role in the management and monitoring of these patients.64,65 Echocardiography must be performed as soon as IE is suspected. TOE must be performed in case of negative TTE when there is a high index of suspicion for IE, particularly when TTE is of suboptimal quality. TOE should also be performed in patients with positive TTE to rule out local complications. The indications of echocardiograph- ic examination for diagnosis and follow-up of patients with sus- pected IE are summarized in Table 10 and Figure 1. In patients with S. aureus bacteraemia, echocardiography is justified in view of the frequency of IE in this setting, the virulence of this organism and its devastating effects once intracardiac infection is estab- lished.66,67 In these patients, TTE or TOE should be considered ac- cording to individual patient risk factors and the mode of acquisition of S. aureus bacteraemia.66,67 Table 10 Role of echocardiography in infective endocarditis Recommendations Classa Levelb Ref.c A. Diagnosis † TTE is recommended as the first-line imaging modality in suspected IE. I B 64,65 † TOE is recommended in all patients with clinical suspicion of IE and a negative or non-diagnostic TTE. I B 64, 68–71 † TOE is recommended in patients with clinical suspicion of IE, when a prosthetic heart valve or an intracardiac device is present. I B 64,71 † Repeat TTE and /or TOE within 5–7 days is recommended in case of initially negative examination when clinical suspicion of IE remains high. I C † Echocardiography should be considered in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. IIa B 66,67 † TOE should be considered in patients with suspected IE, even in cases with positive TTE, except in isolated right-sided native valve IE with good quality TTE examination and unequivocal echocardiographic findings. IIa C B. Follow-up under medical therapy † Repeat TTE and/or TOE are recommended as soon as a new complication of IE is suspected (new murmur, embolism, persisting fever, HF, abscess, atrioventricular block). I B 64,72 Continued Table 10 Continued Recommendations Classa Levelb Ref.c † Repeat TTE and/or TOE should be considered during follow-up of uncomplicated IE, in order to detect new silent complications and monitor vegetation size. The timing and mode (TTE or TOE) of repeat examination depend on the initial findings, type of microorganism, and initial response to therapy. IIa B 64,72 C. Intraoperative echocardiography † Intraoperative echocardiography is recommended in all cases of IE requiring surgery. I B 64,73 D. Following completion of therapy † TTE is recommended at completion of antibiotic therapy for evaluation of cardiac and valve morphology and function. I C HF ¼ heart failure; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; TOE ¼ transoesophageal echocardiography; TTE ¼ transthoracic echocardiography. a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. c Reference(s) supporting recommendations. Clinical suspicion of IE TTE Prosthetic valve Intracardiac device If initial TOE is negative but high suspicion for IE remains, repeat TTE and/or TOE within 5–7 days Non-diagnosis TTE TOEa Stop LowHigh Positive TTE Negative TTE Clinical suspicion of IE IE = infective endocarditis;TOE = transoesophageal echocardiography;TTE = transthoracic echocardiography. a TOE is not mandatory in isolated right-sided native valve IE with good qualityTTE examination and unequivocal echocardiographic Figure 1 Indications for echocardiography in suspected infect- ive endocarditis. ESC Guidelines 3085 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 12. Three echocardiographic findings are major criteria in the diag- nosis of IE: vegetation, abscess or pseudoaneurysm and new dehis- cence of a prosthetic valve8,64,65 (see Table 11 for anatomical and echocardiographic definitions). Nowadays, the sensitivity for the diagnosis of vegetations in native and prosthetic valves is 70% and 50%, respectively, for TTE and 96% and 92%, respectively, for TOE.64,65 Specificity has been reported to be around 90% for both TTE and TOE. Identification of vegetations may be diffi- cult in the presence of pre-existing valvular lesions (mitral valve prolapse, degenerative calcified lesions), prosthetic valves, small vegetations (, 2–3 mm), recent embolization and in non- vegetant IE. Diagnosis may be particularly challenging in IE affecting intracardiac devices, even with the use of TOE. False diagnosis of IE may occur, and in some instances it may be difficult to differentiate vegetations from thrombi, Lambl’s excres- cences, cusp prolapse, chordal rupture, valve fibroelastoma, de- generative or myxomatous valve disease, strands, systemic lupus (Libman–Sacks) lesions, primary antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid lesions or marantic vegetations.74 Therefore the re- sults of the echocardiographic study must be interpreted with cau- tion, taking into account the patient’s clinical presentation and the likelihood of IE. The sensitivity of TTE for the diagnosis of abscesses is about 50%, compared with 90% for TOE. Specificity higher than 90% has been reported for both TTE and TOE.64,65 Small abscesses may be diffi- cult to identify, particularly in the earliest stage of the disease, in the postoperative period and in the presence of a prosthetic valve. IE must always be suspected in patients with new periprosthetic regur- gitation, even in the absence of other echocardiographic findings of IE.64 In cases with an initially negative examination, repeat TTE/TOE must be performed 5–7 days later if the clinical level of suspicion is still high, or even earlier in the case of S. aureus infection.75 Other imaging techniques should also be used in this situation (see section 5.5). Finally, follow-up echocardiography to monitor complications and response to treatment is mandatory (Figure 1). Real-time three-dimensional (3D) TOE allows the analysis of 3D volumes of cardiac structures in any possible plane. A recent study has shown that conventional TOE underestimates vegetation size and that 3D TOE is a feasible technique for the analysis of vegetation morphology and size that may overcome the shortcomings of con- ventional TOE, leading to a better prediction of the embolic risk in IE.76 3D TOE is particularly useful in the assessment of perivalvular extension of the infection, prosthetic valve dehiscence and valve perforation.77 Although in clinical practice 3D TOE is increasingly performed along with conventional TOE in many centres, at present 3D TOE should still be regarded as a supplement to standard echo- cardiography in most cases. 5.3.2 Multislice computed tomography The potential risks of vegetation embolization and/or haemo- dynamic decompensation during coronary angiography (when in- dicated) have led to proposals to consider MSCT coronary angiography as an alternative technique for some patients with endocarditis.78 MSCT can be used to detect abscesses/pseudoaneurysms with a diagnostic accuracy similar to TOE, and is possibly superior in the provision of information regarding the extent and consequences of any perivalvular extension, including the anatomy of pseudoaneur- ysms, abscesses and fistulae.79 In aortic IE, CT may additionally be useful to define the size, anatomy and calcification of the aortic valve, root and ascending aorta, which may be used to inform sur- gical planning. In pulmonary/right-sided endocarditis, CT may re- veal concomitant pulmonary disease, including abscesses and infarcts. In the evaluation of prosthetic valve dysfunction, one recent study has suggested that MSCT may be equivalent or superior to echocardiography for the demonstration of prostheses-related vegetations, abscesses, pseudoaneurysms and dehiscence.80 How- ever, large comparative studies between the two techniques are missing, and echocardiography should always be performed first. The higher sensitivity of MRI compared with CT for the detection of cerebral lesions is well known and has been confirmed in the con- text of endocarditis. However, in the critically ill patient, CT may be more feasible and practical and is an acceptable alternative when MRI is not available. MSCT angiography allows complete Table 11 Anatomical and echocardiographic definitions Surgery/necropsy Echocardiography Vegetation Infected mass attached to an endocardial structure or on implanted intracardiac material. Oscillating or non- oscillating intracardiac mass on valve or other endocardial structures, or on implanted intracardiac material. Abscess Perivalvular cavity with necrosis and purulent material not communicating with the cardiovascular lumen. Thickened,non- homogeneous perivalvular area with echodense or echolucent appearance. Pseudoaneurysm Perivalvular cavity communicating with the cardiovascular lumen. Pulsatile perivalvular echo-free space,with colour-Doppler detected. Perforation Interruption of endocardial tissue continuity. Interruption of endocardial tissue continuity traversed by colour-Doppler Fistula Communication between two neighbouring cavities through a perforation. Colour-Doppler communication between two neighbouring cavities through a perforation. Valve aneurysm Saccular outpouching of valvular tissue. Saccular bulging of valvular tissue. Dehiscence of a prosthetic valve Dehiscence of the prosthesis. Paravalvular regurgitation byTTE/TOE,with or without rocking motion of the prosthesis. TOE ¼ transoesophageal echocardiography; TTE ¼ transthoracic echocardiography. ESC Guidelines3086 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 13. visualization of the intracranial vascular tree and carries a lower con- trast burden and risk of permanent neurological damage than con- ventional digital subtraction angiography, with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 86%.81 Where subarachnoid and/or intraparench- ymal haemorrhage is detected, other vascular imaging (i.e. angiog- raphy) is required to diagnose or exclude a mycotic aneurysm if not detected on CT. Contrast-enhanced MSCT has a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of splenic and other abscesses; however, the differ- entiation with infarction can be challenging. MSCT angiography pro- vides a rapid and comprehensive exploration of the systemic arterial bed. Detailed multiplanar and 3D contrast-enhanced angiographic reconstructions allow vascular mapping with identification and char- acterization of peripheral vascular complications of IE and their follow-up.82 5.3.3 Magnetic resonance imaging Given its higher sensitivity than CT, MRI increases the likelihood of detecting cerebral consequences of IE. Different studies including systematic cerebral MRI during acute IE have consistently reported frequent lesions, in 60–80% of patients.83 Regardless of neurological symptoms, most abnormalities are ischaemic lesions (in 50–80% of patients), with more frequent small ischaemic lesions than larger territorial infarcts.84 Other lesions are found in ,10% of patients and are parenchymal or subarachnoidal haemorrhages, abscesses or mycotic aneurysms.83 – 86 Systematic cerebral MRI has an impact on the diagnosis of IE since it adds one minor Duke criterion87 in patients who have cerebral lesions and no neurological symptoms. In one study, find- ings of cerebral MRI upgraded the diagnosis of IE in 25% of patients presenting initially with non-definite IE, thereby leading to earlier diagnosis.85 Cerebral microbleeds are detected only when using gradient echo T2* sequences and are found in 50–60% of patients.85 Micro- bleeds represent small areas of haemosiderin deposits and are considered as an indicator of small vessel disease. The lack of concordance between ischaemic lesions and microbleeds and the differences in their predictive factors suggest that microbleeds are not of embolic origin.86,88 Therefore, although IE and the presence of microbleeds are strongly linked, microbleeds should not be considered as a minor criterion in the Duke classification.87 Cerebral MRI is, in the majority of cases, abnormal in IE patients with neurological symptoms.89 It has a higher sensitivity than CT in the diagnosis of the culprit lesion, in particular with regards to stroke, transient ischaemic attack and encephalopathy. MRI may also detect additional cerebral lesions that are not related to clinical symptoms. Cerebral MRI has no impact on the diagnosis of IE in pa- tients with neurological symptoms, as they already have one minor Duke criterion, but MRI may impact the therapeutic strategy, par- ticularly the timing of surgery.89 In patients without neurological symptoms, MRI shows cerebral lesions in at least half of the patients, most often ischaemic lesions.90 Systematic abdominal MRI detects lesions in one of three patients evaluated, most often affecting the spleen.91 Ischaemic lesions are most common, followed by ab- scesses and haemorrhagic lesions. Abdominal MRI findings have no incremental impact on the diagnosis of IE when taking into ac- count the findings of cerebral MRI. To summarize, cerebral MRI allows for a better lesion character- ization in patients with IE and neurological symptoms, whereas its impact on IE diagnosis is marked in patients with non-definite IE and without neurological symptoms. 5.3.4 Nuclear imaging With the introduction of hybrid equipment for both conventional nuclear medicine [e.g. single-photon emission CT (SPECT)/CT] and PET (i.e. PET/CT), nuclear molecular techniques are evolving as an important supplementary method for patients with sus- pected IE and diagnostic difficulties. SPECT/CT imaging relies on the use of autologous radiolabelled leucocytes (111 In-oxine or 99m Tc-hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime) that accumulate in a time-dependent fashion in late images versus earlier images,92 whereas PET/CT is generally performed using a single acquisition time point (generally at 1 h) after administration of 18 F-FDG, which is actively incorporated in vivo by activated leucocytes, monocyte- macrophages and CD4+ T-lymphocytes accumulating at the sites of infection. Several reports have shown promising results for radiolabelled white blood cell (WBC) SPECT/CT and 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging in IE. The main added value of using these techniques is the reduc- tion in the rate of misdiagnosed IE, classified in the ‘Possible IE’ cat- egory using the Duke criteria, and the detection of peripheral embolic and metastatic infectious events.93 Limitations to the use of 18 F-FDG PET/CT are represented by localization of septic emboli in the brain, due to the high physiological uptake of this tracer in the brain cortex, and to the fact that at this site, metastatic infections are generally ,5 mm, the spatial resolution threshold of current PET/ CT scanners. Caution must be exercised when interpreting 18 F-FDG PET/CT results in patients who have recently undergone cardiac surgery, as a postoperative inflammatory response may result in non-specific 18 F-FDG uptake in the immediate postoperative period. Further- more, a number of pathological conditions can mimic the pattern of focally increased 18 F-FDG uptake that is typically observed in IE, such as active thrombi, soft atherosclerotic plaques, vasculitis, primary cardiac tumours, cardiac metastasis from a non-cardiac tu- mour, post-surgical inflammation and foreign body reactions.94 Radiolabelled WBC SPECT/CT is more specific for the detection of IE and infectious foci than 18 F-FDG PET/CT and should be pre- ferred in all situations that require enhanced specificity.95 Disadvan- tages of scintigraphy with radiolabelled WBC are the requirement of blood handling for radiopharmaceutical preparation, the duration of the procedure, which is more time consuming than PET/CT, and a slightly lower spatial resolution and photon detection efficiency compared with PET/CT. An additional promising role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT may be seen in patients with established IE, in whom it could be employed to moni- tor response to antimicrobial treatment. However, sufficient data are not available at this time to make a general recommendation. 5.4 Microbiological diagnosis 5.4.1 Blood culture–positive infective endocarditis Positive blood cultures remain the cornerstone of diagnosis and pro- vide live bacteria for both identification and susceptibility testing. At ESC Guidelines 3087 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 14. least three sets are taken at 30-min intervals, each containing 10 mL of blood, and should be incubated in both aerobic and anaerobic atmo- spheres. Sampling should be obtained from a peripheral vein rather than from a central venous catheter (because of the risk of contam- ination and misleading interpretation), using a meticulous sterile tech- nique. This is virtually always sufficient to identify the usual causative microorganisms. The need for culture before antibiotic administra- tion is self-evident. In IE, bacteraemia is almost constant and has two implications: (i) there is no rationale for delaying blood sampling with peaks of fever and (ii) virtually all blood cultures are positive. As a result, a single positive blood culture should be regarded cautiously for establishing the diagnosis of IE. The microbiology laboratory should be aware of the clinical suspicion of IE at the time of blood cul- ture sampling. When a microorganism has been identified, blood cul- tures should be repeated after 48–72 h to check the effectiveness of treatment. Automated machines perform continuous monitoring of bacterial growth, which ensures quick provision of reports to physi- cians. When a positive blood culture bottle is identified, presumptive identification is based on Gram staining. This information is immedi- ately given to clinicians in order to adapt presumptive antibiotic ther- apy. Complete identification is routinely achieved within 2 days, but may require longer for fastidious or atypical organisms. Since the de- lay between blood culture sampling and definitive identification of the organism responsible for the bacteraemia and antibiotic susceptibility testing is long, many improvements have been proposed to speed up the process of detection and identification. One of the most recent procedures for rapid bacterial identification is based on peptide spec- tra obtained by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. This technique has recently de- monstrated its usefulness in clinical microbiology; it also has the po- tential for direct identification of bacterial colonies in the blood culture bottle supernatant.96 5.4.2 Blood culture–negative infective endocarditis Blood culture–negative IE (BCNIE) refers to IE in which no causa- tive microorganism can be grown using the usual blood culture methods. BCNIE can occur in up to 31% of all cases of IE and often poses considerable diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas. BCNIE most commonly arises as a consequence of previous antibiotic administration, underlying the need for withdrawing antibiotics and repeating blood cultures in this situation. BCNIE can be caused by fungi or fastidious bacteria, notably obligatory intracellular bac- teria. Isolation of these microorganisms requires culturing them on specialized media, and their growth is relatively slow. According to local epidemiology, systematic serological testing for Coxiella bur- netii, Bartonella spp., Aspergillus spp., Mycoplasma pneumonia, Brucel- la spp. and Legionella pneumophila should be proposed, followed by specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for Tropheryma whipplei, Bartonella spp. and fungi (Candida spp., Aspergillus spp.) from the blood97 (Table 12). Most studies using blood PCR for the diagnosis of BCNIE have highlighted the importance of Streptococcus gallolyticus and Streptococcus mitis, enterococci, S. aureus, Escherichia coli and fastidious bacteria, the respective prevalence of which varies according to the status and condition of the patient.98 When all microbiological assays are negative, the diagnosis of non-infectious endocarditis should systematically be considered and assays for antinuclear antibodies as well as antiphospholipid syn- drome {anticardiolipin antibodies [immunoglobulin (Ig)G] and anti-b2-glycoprotein 1 antibodies [IgG and IgM]} should be per- formed. When all other tests are negative and the patient has a por- cine bioprosthesis together with markers of allergic response, anti-pork antibodies should be sought.99 5.4.3 Histological diagnosis of infective endocarditis Pathological examination of resected valvular tissue or embolic frag- ments remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of IE. All tissue samples that are excised during the course of the surgical removal of cardiac valves must be collected in a sterile container without fixative or culture medium. The entire sample should be taken to the diagnostic microbiology laboratory for optimal recovery and identification of microorganisms. 5.4.4 Proposed strategy for a microbiological diagnostic algorithm in suspected IE A proposed diagnostic scheme is provided in Figure 2. When there is clinical suspicion of IE and blood cultures remain negative at 48 h, liaison with the microbiologist is necessary. A suggested strategy is the use of a diagnostic kit including blood cultures and systematic serological testing for C. burnetii, Bartonella spp., Aspergillus spp., L. pneumophila, Brucella spp., M. pneumonia, as well as rheumatoid factor, the serological tests for antiphospholipid syndrome [anticar- diolipin (IgG) and anti-b2-glycoprotein 1 (IgG and IgM)], antinuclear antibodies and anti-pork antibodies. In addition, cardiac valvular ma- terials obtained at surgery have to be subjected to systematic cul- ture, histological examination and PCR aimed at documenting the presence of fastidious organisms. Table 12 Investigation of rare causes of blood culture negative infective endocarditis Pathogen Diagnostic procedures Brucella spp. Blood cultures,serology,culture,immunohistology, and PCR of surgical material. Coxiella burnetii Serology (IgG phase l >1:800),tissue culture, immunohistology,and PCR of surgical material. Bartonella spp. Blood cultures,serology,culture,immunohistology, and PCR of surgical material. Tropheryma whipplei Histology and PCR of surgical material. Mycoplasma spp. Serology,culture,immunohistology,and PCR of surgical material. Legionella spp. Blood cultures,serology,culture,immunohistology, and PCR of surgical material. Fungi Blood cultures,serology,PCR of surgical material. Ig ¼ immunoglobulin; PCR ¼ polymerase chain reaction. ESC Guidelines3088 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 15. 5.5 Diagnostic criteria Besides the pathological aspect obtained after valve surgery, in clinical practice the diagnosis of IE usually relies on the association between an infective syndrome and recent endocardial involvement. This is the cornerstone of the various criteria proposed to facilitate the difficult diagnosis of this disease. Thus, in 2000, the modified Duke criteria were recommended for diagnostic classification (Table 13). These cri- teria are based on clinical, echocardiographic and biological findings, as well as the results of blood cultures and serologies.87 This classifica- tion has a sensitivity of approximately 80% overall when the criteria are evaluated at the end of patient follow-up in epidemiological stud- ies.100 However, the modified Duke criteria show a lower diagnostic accuracy for early diagnosis in clinical practice, especially in the case of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) and pacemaker or defibrillator lead IE, for which echocardiography is normal or inconclusive in up to 30% of cases.101,102 Recent advances in imaging techniques have re- sulted in an improvement in identification of endocardial involvements and extracardiac complications of IE.10,103 Thus recent works have de- monstrated that cardiac/whole-body CT scan, cerebral MRI, 18 F-FDG PET/CT and radiolabelled leucocyte SPECT/CT might improve the detection of silent vascular phenomena (embolic events or infectious aneurysms) as well as endocardial lesions.79,80,83–85,93,94,104–108 The addition of the results of these imaging modalities may improve the sensitivity of the modified Duke criteria in difficult cases. BCNIE = blood culture-negative infective endocarditis;IE = infective endocarditis;PCR = polymerase chain reaction. a microbiological laboratory b Immunological laboratory Suspected IE Blood cultures Antibiotic resistance and agar culture Agar culture Blood PCRa Specific PCRa Serologies Coxiella burnetiia Bartonella henseleaa Bartonella Quintana Legionella Pneumophila Brucella spp Mycoplasma spp Aspergillus spp Staphylococcus aureus, Tropheryma whipplei, Fungi, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus gallolyticus Streptococcus mitis, Enterococci BCNIE Antimicrobial susceptibility testing Antimicrobial susceptibility testing Antinuclear antibodiesb Anti phospholipid antibodiesb Anti-Pork antibodiesb Mass spectrometry OR Routine identification Microbiological identification Identification by mass spectrometry + - Figure 2 Microbiological diagnostic algorithm in culture-positive and culture-negative IE. Table 13 Definition of infective endocarditis according to the modified Duke criteria (adapted from Li et al.87 ) Pathological criteria • Microorganisms demonstrated by culture or on histological examination of a vegetation, a vegetation that has embolized, or an intracardiac abscess specimen; or • Pathological lesions; vegetation or intracardiac abscess by histological examination showing active endocarditis Clinical criteria • 2 major criteria; or • 1 major criterion and 3 minor criteria; or • 5 minor criteria Possible IE • 1 major criterion and 1 minor criterion; or • 3 minor criteria Rejected IE • Firm alternate diagnosis; or • Resolution of symptoms suggesting IE with antibiotic therapy for ≤4 days; or • No pathological evidence of IE at surgery or autopsy, with antibiotic therapy for ≤4 days; or • Does not meet criteria for possible IE, as above ESC Guidelines 3089 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 16. Given the recent published data, the Task Force proposes the addition of three further points in the diagnostic criteria (Table 14): (1) The identification of paravalvular lesions by cardiac CT should be considered a major criterion. (2) In the setting of the suspicion of endocarditis on a prosthetic valve, abnormal activity around the site of implantation de- tected by 18 F-FDG PET/CT (only if the prosthesis was im- planted for .3 months) or radiolabelled leucocyte SPECT/ CT should be considered a major criterion. (3) The identification of recent embolic events or infectious aneur- ysms by imaging only (silent events) should be considered a min- or criterion. Figure 3 presents the proposed ESC diagnostic algorithm including the ESC 2015 modified diagnostic criteria. The diagnosis of IE is still based on the Duke criteria, with a major role of echocardiography and blood cultures. When the diagnosis remains only ‘possible’ or even ‘rejected’ but with a persisting high level of clinical suspicion, echocardiography and blood culture should be repeated and other imaging techniques should be used, either for diagnosis of cardiac involvement (cardiac CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CT or radiolabelled leuco- cyte SPECT/CT) or for imaging embolic events (cerebral MRI, whole-body CT and/or PET/CT). The results of these new investi- gations should then be integrated in the ESC 2015 modified diagnos- tic criteria. Finally, 18 F-FDG PET/CT and radiolabelled leucocyte SPECT/CT have proven their role in the diagnosis of cardiovascular electronic implanted devices,108 but the data are not sufficient for them to be included in the diagnostic criteria of the specific topic of IE on pace- maker or defibrillator leads. In summary, echocardiography (TTE and TOE), positive blood cul- tures and clinical features remain the cornerstone of IE diagnosis. When blood cultures are negative, further microbiological studies are needed. The sensitivity of the Duke criteria can be improved by new imaging modalities (MRI, CT, PET/CT) that allow the diag- nosis of embolic events and cardiac involvement when TTE/TOE findings are negative or doubtful. These criteria are useful, but they do not replace the clinical judgement of the Endocarditis Team. 6. Prognostic assessment at admission The in-hospital mortality rate of patients with IE varies from 15% to 30%.109 –114 Rapid identification of patients at highest risk of death Table 14 Definitions of the terms used in the European Society of Cardiology 2015 modified criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis Major criteria 1.Blood cultures positive for IE a. Typical microorganisms consistent with IE from 2 separate blood cultures: • Viridans streptococci, Streptococcus gallolyticus (Streptococcus bovis), HACEK group, Staphylococcus aureus; or • Community-acquired enterococci, in the absence of a primary focus; or b. Microorganisms consistent with IE from persistently positive blood cultures: • ≥2 positive blood cultures of blood samples drawn >12 h apart;or • All of 3 or a majority of ≥4 separate cultures of blood (with and last samples drawn ≥1 h apart); or c. Single positive blood culture for Coxiella burnetii or phase I IgG antibody titre >1:800 2.Imaging positive for IE a. Echocardiogram positive for IE: •Vegetation; •Abscess, pseudoaneurysm, intracardiac •Valvular perforation or aneurysm; • New partial dehiscence of prosthetic valve. b. Abnormal activity around the site of prosthetic valve implantation detected by 18 F-FDG PET/CT (only if the prosthesis was implanted for >3 months) or radiolabelled leukocytes SPECT/CT. paravalvular lesions by cardiac CT. Minor criteria 1. Predisposition such as predisposing heart condition, or injection drug use. 2. Fever as temperature >38°C. 3. Vascular phenomena (including those detected by imaging only): major arterial emboli, septic pulmonary infarcts, infectious (mycotic) aneurysm, intracranial haemorrhage, conjunctival haemorrhages, and Janeway’s lesions. 4. Immunological phenomena:glomerulonephritis,Osler’s nodes,Roth’s spots, and rheumatoid factor. 5. Microbiological evidence: positive blood culture but does not meet a major criterion as noted above or serological evidence of active infection with organism consistent with IE. CT ¼ computed tomography; FDG ¼ fluorodeoxyglucose; HACEK ¼ Haemophilus parainfluenzae, H. aphrophilus, H. paraphrophilus, H. influenzae, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Cardiobacterium hominis, Eikenella corrodens, Kingella kingae, and K. denitrificans; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; Ig ¼ immunoglobulin; PET ¼ positron emission tomography; SPECT ¼ single photon emission computerized tomography. Adapted from Li et al.87 Clinical suspicion of IE Modified Duke criteria (Li) ESC 2015 modified diagnostic criteriab Definite IE Possible/rejected IE but high suspicion Native valve Prosthetic valve 1 - Repeat echo (TTE + TOE)/microbiology 2 - Imaging for embolic eventsa 3 - Cardiac CT 1 - Repeat echo (TTE + TOE)/microbiology 2 - 18 F-FDG PET/CT or Leucocytes labeled SPECT/CT 3 - Cardiac CT 4 - Imaging for embolic eventsa Rejected IE Low suspicion Definite IE Possible IE Rejected IE CT = computed tomography;FDG = IE = infective endocarditis; PET = positron emission tomography;SPECT = single photon emission computerized tomography; TOE = transoesophageal echocardiography;TTE = transthoracic echocardiography. a May include cerebral MRI,whole body CT,and/or PET/CT. b SeeTable 14. Figure 3 European Society of Cardiology 2015 algorithm for diagnosis of infective endocarditis. ESC Guidelines3090 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 17. may offer the opportunity to change the course of the disease (i.e. emergency or urgent surgery) and improve prognosis.115 Prognosis in IE is influenced by four main factors: patient characteristics, the presence or absence of cardiac and non-cardiac complications, the infecting organism and the echocardiographic findings (Table 15). The risk of patients with left-sided IE has been formally assessed ac- cording to these variables.116,117 Patients with HF, periannular com- plications and/or S. aureus infection are at highest risk of death and need for surgery in the active phase of the disease.117 When three of these factors are present, the risk reaches 79%.117 Therefore these patients with complicated IE should be referred early and managed in a reference centre with surgical facilities and preferably by an Endocarditis Team.118 A high degree of co-morbidity, diabetes, sep- tic shock, moderate-to-severe ischaemic stroke, brain haemorrhage or the need for haemodialysis are also predictors of poor in-hospital outcome.111 – 115,119 – 122 Persistence of positive blood cultures 48–72 h after initiation of antibiotic treatment indicates a lack of in- fection control and is an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality.123 Nowadays, 40–50% of patients undergo cardiac surgery during hospitalization.37,109 – 114 Surgical mortality in IE strongly depends on its indication. Among patients who need emergency or urgent surgery, septic shock, persistent signs of infection and renal failure are predictors of mortality.112,120,124 Predictably, patients with an in- dication for surgery who cannot proceed due to prohibitive surgical risk have the worst prognosis.125 In summary, prognostic assessment at admission can be performed using simple clinical, microbiological and echocardiographic para- meters and should be used to select the best initial approach. Pa- tients with persistently positive blood cultures 48–72 h after starting antibiotics have a worse prognosis. 7. Antimicrobial therapy: principles and methods 7.1 General principles Successful treatment of IE relies on microbial eradication by anti- microbial drugs. Surgery contributes by removing infected material and draining abscesses. Host defences are of little help. This explains why bactericidal regimens are more effective than bacteriostatic therapy, both in animal experiments and in humans.126,127 Amino- glycosides synergize with cell-wall inhibitors (i.e. beta-lactams and glycopeptides) for bactericidal activity and are useful for shortening the duration of therapy (e.g. oral streptococci) and eradicating prob- lematic organisms (e.g. Enterococcus spp.). One major hindrance to drug-induced killing is bacterial antibiotic tolerance. Tolerant microbes are not resistant (i.e. they are still sus- ceptible to growth inhibition by the drug) but escape drug-induced killing and may resume growth after treatment discontinuation. Slow-growing and dormant microbes display phenotypic tolerance towards most antimicrobials (except rifampin to some extent). They are present in vegetations and biofilms (e.g. in PVE) and justify the need for prolonged therapy (6 weeks) to fully sterilize infected heart valves. Some bacteria carry mutations rendering them tolerant during both active growth and stationary (dormant) phases. Bacteri- cidal drug combinations are preferred to monotherapy against tol- erant organisms. Drug treatment of PVE should last longer (at least 6 weeks) than that of native valve endocarditis (NVE) (2–6 weeks), but is other- wise similar, except for staphylococcal PVE, where the regimen should include rifampin whenever the strain is susceptible. In NVE needing valve replacement by a prosthesis during antibiot- ic therapy, the postoperative antibiotic regimen should be that re- commended for NVE, not for PVE. In both NVE and PVE, the duration of treatment is based on the first day of effective antibiotic therapy (negative blood culture in the case of initial positive blood culture), not on the day of surgery. A new full course of treatment should only start if valve cultures are positive, with the choice of antibiotic being based on the susceptibility of the latest recovered bacterial isolate. Finally, there are six important considerations in the current recommendations: (1) The indications and pattern of use of aminoglycosides have changed. They are no longer recommended in staphylococcal NVE because their clinical benefits have not been demon- strated, but they can increase renal toxicity;128 when they are indicated in other conditions, aminoglycosides should be given in a single daily dose to reduce nephrotoxicity.129 Table 15 Predictors of poor outcome in patients with infective endocarditis Patient characteristics • Older age • Prosthetic valve IE • Diabetes mellitus • Comorbidity (e.g., frailty, immunosuppression, renal or pulmonary disease) Clinical complications of IE • Heart failure • Renal failure • >Moderate area of ischaemic stroke • Brain haemorrhage • Septic shock Microorganism • Staphylococcus aureus • Fungi • Non-HACEK Gram-negative bacilli • Periannular complications • Severe left-sided valve regurgitation • Low left ventricular ejection fraction • Pulmonary hypertension • Large vegetations • Severe prosthetic valve dysfunction • Premature mitral valve closure and other signs of elevated diastolic pressures HACEK ¼ Haemophilus parainfluenzae, H. aphrophilus, H. paraphrophilus, H. influenzae, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Cardiobacterium hominis, Eikenella corrodens, Kingella kingae, and K. denitrificans; IE ¼ infective endocarditis. ESC Guidelines 3091 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 18. (2) Rifampin should be used only in foreign body infections such as PVE after 3–5 days of effective antibiotic therapy, once the bacteraemia has been cleared. The rationale supporting this recommendation is based on the likely antagonistic effect of the antibiotic combinations with rifampin against planktonic/ replicating bacteria,130 the synergy seen against dormant bac- teria within the biofilms and prevention of rifampin-resistant variants.131 (3) Daptomycin and fosfomycin have been recommended for treating staphylococcal endocarditis and netilmicin for treat- ing penicillin-susceptible oral and digestive streptococci, but they are considered alternative therapies in these guidelines because they are not available in all European countries. When daptomycin is indicated, it must be given at high doses (≥10 mg/kg once daily132 ) and combined with a second anti- biotic to increase activity and avoid the development of resistance.133,134 (4) Only published antibiotic efficacy data from clinical trials and cohort studies in patients with endocarditis (or bacteraemia if there are no endocarditis data) have been considered in these guidelines. Data from experimental endocarditis models have not been taken into account in most cases. (5) We are still using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) breakpoints instead of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test- ing ones because most endocarditis data are derived from stud- ies using the former breakpoints. (6) Although a consensus was obtained for the majority of antibiot- ic treatments, the optimal treatment of staphylococcal IE and the empirical treatment are still debated. 7.2 Penicillin-susceptible oral streptococci and Streptococcus bovis group Recommended regimens against susceptible streptococci (penicil- lin MIC ≤0.125 mg/L) are summarized in Table 16.6,8,135,136 The cure rate is expected to be .95%. In uncomplicated cases, short- term 2-week therapy can be administered by combining penicillin or ceftriaxone with gentamicin or netilmicin.137,138 Gentamicin and netilmicin can be given once daily in patients with IE due to susceptible streptococci and normal renal function. Ceftriaxone alone or combined with gentamicin or netilmicin given once a day is particularly convenient for outpatient therapy.137 – 139 If desensitization cannot be performed, patients allergic to beta- lactam should receive vancomycin. Teicoplanin has been proposed as an alternative,8 but requires loading doses (6 mg/kg/12 h for 3 days) followed by 6–10 mg/kg/day. Loading is critical because the drug is highly bound (≥98%) to serum proteins and penetrates slowly into vegetations.140 However, only limited retrospective studies have assessed its efficacy in streptococcal141 and entero- coccal142 IE. 7.3 Penicillin-resistant oral streptococci and Streptococcus bovis group Penicillin-resistant oral streptococci are classified as inter- mediate resistant (MIC 0.25–2 mg/L) and fully resistant (MIC ≥4 mg/L). However, some guidelines consider an MIC .0.5 mg/L as fully resistant.6,8,135 Such resistant streptococci are in- creasing in number. Large strain collections have reported .30% of intermediate- and fully resistant Streptococcus mitis and Streptococcus oralis.142,143 Conversely, .99% of digestive streptococci remain penicillin susceptible. Treatment guidelines for penicillin-resistant streptococcal IE rely on retrospectives series. Compiling four of them, 47 of 60 patients (78%) were treated with penicillin or ceftriaxone, mostly combined with aminoglycosides, and some with either clindamycin or aminoglycosides alone.144 – 147 Most penicillin MICs were ≥1 mg/L. Fifty patients (83%) were cured and 10 (17%) died. Death was not related to resistance, but to the pa- tients’ underlying conditions.146 Treatment outcomes were similar in PVE and NVE.145 Hence antibiotic therapy for penicillin-resistant and penicillin-susceptible oral streptococci is qualitatively similar (Table 16). However, in penicillin-resistant cases, aminoglycoside treatment must be given for at least 2 weeks and short-term therapy regimens are not recommended. Little ex- perience exists with highly resistant isolates (MIC ≥4 mg/L), but vancomycin might be preferred in such circumstances (combined with aminoglycosides). There is very limited experience with daptomycin. 7.4 Streptococcus pneumoniae, beta-haemolytic streptococci (groups A, B, C, and G) IE due to S. pneumoniae has become rare since the introduction of antibiotics. It is associated with meningitis in up to 30% of cases,149 which requires special consideration in cases with penicillin resistance. Treatment of penicillin-susceptible strains (MIC ≤0.06 mg/L) is similar to that of oral streptococci (Table 16), except for the use of short-term 2-week therapy, which has not been formally investigated. The same holds true for penicillin inter- mediate (MIC 0.125–2 mg/L) or resistant strains (MIC ≥4 mg/L) without meningitis, although for resistant strains some authors recommend high doses of cephalosporins (e.g. cefotaxime or ceftri- axone) or vancomycin. In cases with meningitis, penicillin must be avoided because of its poor penetration of the cerebrospinal fluid, and should be replaced with ceftriaxone or cefotaxime alone or in as- sociation with vancomycin150 according to the antibiotic susceptibility pattern. IE due to group A, B, C, or G streptococci—including Streptococ- cus anginosus group (S. constellatus, S. anginosus, and S. intermedius)— is relatively rare.151 Group A streptococci are uniformly susceptible to beta-lactams (MIC ≤0.12 mg/L), whereas other serogroups may display some degree of resistance. IE due to group B strepto- cocci was once associated with the peripartum period, but it now occurs in other adults, especially the elderly. Group B, C, and G streptococci and S. anginosus produce abscesses and thus may re- quire adjunctive surgery.151 Mortality from group B PVE is very high and cardiac surgery is recommended.152 Antibiotic treatment is similar to that of oral streptococci (Table 16), except that short- term therapy is not recommended. Gentamicin should be given for 2 weeks. ESC Guidelines3092 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 19. Table 16 Antibiotic treatment of infective endocarditis due to oral streptococci and Streptococcus bovis groupa Antibiotic Dosage and route Duration (weeks) Classb Levelc Ref.d Comments Strains penicillin-susceptible (MIC ≤ 0.125 mg/L) oral and digestive streptococci Standard treatment: 4-week duration Penicillin G or Amoxicilline or Ceftriaxonef 12–18 million U/day i.v. either in 4–6 doses or continuously 100–200 mg/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 2 g/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose 4 I B 6,8, 135– 139 Preferred in patients . 65 years or with impaired renal or VIII (vestibulocochlear) cranial nerve functions. 6-week therapy recommended for patients with PVE 4 I B 4 I B Paediatric doses:g Penicillin G 200,000 U/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 divided doses Amoxicillin 300 mg/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 equally divided doses Ceftriaxone 100 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose Standard treatment: 2-week duration Penicillin G or Amoxicilline or Ceftriaxonef combined with Gentamicinh or Netilmicin 12–18 million U/day i.v. either in 4–6 doses or continuously 100–200 mg/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 2 g/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose 4–5 mg/kg/day i.v. in 1 dose 2 I B 6,8, 127, 135– 138 Only recommended in patients with non-complicated NVE with normal renal function. Netilmicin is not available in all European countries. 2 I B 2 I B 2 I B 2 I B Paediatric doses:g Penicillin G, amoxicillin, and ceftriaxone as above Gentamicin 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose or 3 equally divided doses In beta-lactam allergic patientsi Vancomycinj 30 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2 doses 4 I C 6-week therapy recommended for patients with PVE Paediatric doses:g Vancomycin 40 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2 or 3 equally divided doses Strains relatively resistant to penicillin (MIC 0.250–2 mg/l)k Standard treatment Penicillin G or Amoxicilline or Ceftriaxonef combined with Gentamicinh 24 million U/day i.v. either in 4–6 doses or continuously 200 mg/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 2 g/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose 4 I B 6,8, 135, 136 6-week therapy recommended for patients with PVE 4 I B 4 I B 2 I B In beta-lactam allergic patientsi Vancomycinj with Gentamicink 30 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2 doses 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose Paediatric doses:g As above 4 I C 6-week therapy recommended for patients with PVE 2 I C Cmin ¼ minimum concentration; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; i.m. ¼ intramuscular; i.v. ¼ intravenous; MIC ¼ minimum inhibitory concentration; NVE ¼ native valve endocarditis; PVE ¼ prosthetic valve endocarditis; U ¼ units. a Refer to text for other streptococcal species; b Class of recommendation; c Level of evidence; d Reference(s) supporting recommendations; e Or ampicillin, same dosages as amoxicillin; f Preferred for outpatient therapy; g Paediatric doses should not exceed adult doses; h Renal function and serum gentamicin concentrations should be monitored once a week. When given in a single daily dose, pre-dose (trough) concentrations should be , 1 mg/L and post-dose (peak; 1 hours after injection) serum concentrations should be 10–12 mg/L.148 ; i Penicillin desensitization can be attempted in stable patients; j Serum vancomycin concentrations should achieve 10–15 mg/L at pre-dose (trough) level, although some experts recommend to increase the dose of vancomycin to 45–60 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2 or 3 divided doses to reach serum trough vancomycin levels (Cmin) of 15– 20 mg/L as in staphylococcal endocarditis. However, vancomycin dose should not exceed 2 g/d unless serum levels are monitored and can be adjusted to obtain a peak plasma concentration of 30–45 mg/mL 1 hour after completion of the i.v. infusion of the antibiotic; k Patients with penicillin-resistant strains (MIC . 2 mg/L) should be treated as enterococcal endocarditis (see Table 18). ESC Guidelines 3093 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 20. 7.5 Granulicatella and Abiotrophia (formerly nutritionally variant streptococci) Granulicatella and Abiotrophia produce IE with a protracted course, which is associated with large vegetations (.10 mm), higher rates of complications and valve replacement (around 50%),153,154 possibly due to delayed diagnosis and treatment. Antibiotic recom- mendations include penicillin G, ceftriaxone or vancomycin for 6 weeks, combined with an aminoglycoside for at least the first 2 weeks.153,154 7.6 Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci Staphylococcus aureus is usually responsible for acute and destructive IE, whereas CoNS produce more protracted valve infections (except S. lugdunensis155 and some cases of S. capitis).156,157 Table 17 summarizes treatment recommendations for methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant S. aureus and CoNS in both native and pros- thetic valve IE. Of note, the addition of an aminoglycoside in staphylococcal native valve IE is no longer recommended because it increases renal toxicity.128,158 Short-term (2-week) and oral treat- ments have been proposed for uncomplicated right-sided native valve methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) IE (see also section 12.4.2), but these regimens cannot be applied to left-sided IE. For penicillin-allergic patients with MSSA IE, penicillin desensitization can be attempted in stable patients since vancomycin is inferior to beta-lactams159 and should not be given. If beta-lactams cannot be given, where available, daptomycin should be chosen and given in combination with another effective antistaphylococcal drug to increase activity and avoid the development of resistance. Some experts have recommended a combination of high doses of cotrimoxazole plus clindamycin as an alternative for S. aureus IE.160 S. lugdunensis is always methicillin susceptible and can be trea- ted with cloxacillin.155 Staphylococcus aureus PVE carries a very high risk of mortality (.45%)161 and often requires early valve replacement. Other dif- ferences in comparison with NVE include the overall duration of therapy, the use of aminoglycosides and the addition of rifampin after 3–5 days of effective antibiotic therapy once the bacteraemia has been cleared. The rationale supporting this recommendation is based on the antagonistic effect of the antibiotic combinations with rifampin against planktonic/replicating bacteria and the synergy seen against dormant bacteria within the biofilm, as it has been demonstrated in foreign body infection models and clinically in prosthetic orthopaedic and vascular infections. Although the le- vel of evidence is poor, adding rifampin to the treatment of staphylococcal PVE is standard practice, although treatment may be associated with microbial resistance, hepatotoxicity and drug interactions.164 7.7 Methicillin-resistant and vancomycin-resistant staphylococci Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) produces low-affinity penicil- lin binding protein 2a (PBP2a), which confers cross-resistance to most beta-lactams. MRSA are usually resistant to multiple antibiotics, leaving only vancomycin and daptomycin to treat severe infections. However, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (MIC 4– 8 mg/L) and hetero-vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (MIC ≤2 mg/L, but with subpopulations growing at higher concentra- tions) have emerged worldwide and are associated with IE treat- ment failures.165,166 Moreover, some highly vancomycin-resistant S. aureus strains have been isolated from infected patients in recent years, requiring new approaches to treatment. In addition, a system- atic review and meta-analysis of studies published between 1996 and 2011 in patients with MRSA bacteraemia with vancomycin- susceptible strains (MIC ≤2 mg/L)167 showed that a high vancomy- cin MIC (≥1.5 mg/L) was associated with higher mortality. Daptomycin is a lipopeptide antibiotic approved for S. aureus bacteraemia and right-sided IE.168 Cohort studies of S. aureus and CoNS IE132,168 – 170 have shown that daptomycin is at least as effective as vancomycin, and in two cohort studies of MRSA bacteraemia with high vancomycin MICs (.1 mg/L),171,172 dapto- mycin was associated with better outcomes (including survival) compared with vancomycin. Importantly, daptomycin needs to be administered in appropriate doses and combined with other antibiotics to avoid further resistance in patients with IE.168,173 For this reason, daptomycin should be given at high doses (≥10 mg/kg), and most experts recommend it be combined with beta-lactams133 or fosfomycin134 [beta-lactams (and probably fos- fomycin) increase membrane daptomycin binding by decreasing the positive surface charge] for NVE and with gentamicin and ri- fampin for PVE.168,173,174 Other alternatives include fosfomycin plus imipenem,175 newer beta-lactams with relatively good PBP2a affinity such as ceftaroline,176 quinupristin–dalfopristin with or without beta-lactams,177,178 beta- lactams plus oxazolidinones (linezolid),179 beta-lactams plus vanco- mycin180 and high doses of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin.160 Such cases warrant collaborative management with an ID specialist. 7.8 Enterococcus spp. Enterococcal IE is primarily caused by Enterococcus faecalis (90% of cases) and, more rarely, by Enterococcus faecium (5% of cases) or other species.181 They pose two major problems. First, entero- cocci are highly resistant to antibiotic-induced killing, and eradica- tion requires prolonged administration (up to 6 weeks) of synergistic bactericidal combinations of two cell wall inhibitors (ampicillin plus ceftriaxone, which synergize by inhibiting comple- mentary PBPs) or one cell wall inhibitor with aminoglycosides (Table 18). Second, they may be resistant to multiple drugs, includ- ing aminoglycosides [high-level aminoglycoside resistance (HLAR)], beta-lactams (via PBP5 modification and sometimes beta-lactamases) and vancomycin.182 Fully penicillin-susceptible strains (penicillin MIC ≤8 mg/L) are treated with penicillin G or ampicillin (or amoxicillin) combined with gentamicin. Ampicillin (or amoxicillin) might be preferred since MICs are two to four times lower. Gentamicin resistance is frequent in both E. faecalis and E. faecium.182 An aminoglycoside MIC .500 mg/L (HLAR) is associated with the loss of bactericidal syner- gism with cell wall inhibitors, and aminoglycosides should not be used in such conditions. Streptomycin may remain active in such cases and is a useful alternative. ESC Guidelines3094 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 21. Table 17 Antibiotic treatment of infective endocarditis due to Staphylococcus spp. Antibiotic Dosage and route Duration (weeks) Classi Levelj Ref.k Comments Native valves Methicillin-susceptible staphylococci (Flu)cloxacillin or oxacillin 12 g/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 4–6 I B 6,8, 128, 135, 136, 158 Gentamicin addition is not recommended because clinical benefit has not been demonstrated and there is increased renal toxicity *for Stahylococcus aureus Paediatric doses:g 200–300 mg/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 equally divided doses Alternative therapy* Cotrimoxazolea with Clindamycin Sulfamethoxazole 4800 mg/day and Trimethoprim 960 mg/day (i.v. in 4–6 doses) 1800mg/day i.v. in 3 doses 1 i.v. + 5 oral intake IIb C 1 IIb C Paediatric doses:g Sulfamethoxazole 60 mg/kg/day and Trimethoprim 12 mg/kg/day (i.v. in 2 doses) Clindamycin 40 mg/kg/day (i.v. in 3 doses) Penicillin-allergic patientsh or methicillin-resistant staphylococci Vancomycinb ** 30–60 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2–3 doses 4–6 I B 6,8, 135, 136 Cephalosporins (cefazolin 6 g/day or cefotaxime 6 g/day i.v. in 3 doses) are recommended for penicillin-allergic patients with non-anaphylactic reactions with methicillin-susceptible endocarditis Daptomycin is superior to vancomycin for MSSA and MRSA bacteraemia with vancomycin MIC . 1 mg/L *for Stahylococcus aureus Paediatric doses:g 40 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2–3 equally divided doses Alternative therapy**: Daptomycinc,d 10 mg/kg/day i.v. once daily 4–6 IIa C Paediatric doses:g 10 mg/kg/day i.v. once daily Alternative therapy* Cotrimoxazolea with Clindamycin Sulfamethoxazole 4800 mg/day and Trimethoprim 960 mg/day (i.v. in 4–6 doses) 1800mg/day IV in 3 doses 1 i.v. + 5 oral intake IIb C 1 IIb C Prosthetic valves Methicillin-susceptible staphylococci (Flu)cloxacillin or oxacillin with Rifampine and Gentamicin f 12 g/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 900–1200 mg i.v. or orally in 2 or 3 divided doses 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 or 2 doses ≥ 6 I B 6,8, 135, 136 Starting rifampin 3–5 days later than vancomycin and gentamicin has been suggested by some experts. Gentamicin can be given in a single daily dose in order to reduce renal toxicity ≥ 6 I B 2 I B Paediatric doses:g Oxacillin and (flu)cloxacillin as above Rifampin 20 mg/kg/day i.v. or orally in 3 equally divided doses Penicillin-allergic patientsh and methicillin-resistant staphylococci Vancomycinb with Rifampine and Gentamicinf 30–60 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2–3 doses 900–1200 mg i.v. or orally in 2 or 3 divided doses 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 or 2 doses Paediatric dosing:g As above ≥ 6 I B 6,8, 135, 136 Cephalosporins (cefazolin 6 g/day or cefotaxime 6 g/day i.v. in 3 doses) are recommended for penicillin-allergic patients with non-anaphylactic reactions with methicillin-susceptible endocarditis. Starting rifampin 3–5 days later than vancomycin and gentamicin has been suggested by some experts. Gentamicin can be given in a single daily dose in order to reduce renal toxicity ≥ 6 I B 2 I B AUC ¼ area under the curve; Cmin ¼ minimum concentration; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; MIC ¼ minimum inhibitory concentration; MRSA ¼ methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA ¼ methicillin-susceptible S. aureus; PVE ¼ prosthetic valve endocarditis. a Renal function, serum Cotrimoxazole concentrations should be monitored once/week (twice/week in patients with renal failure); b Serum trough vancomycin levels (Cmin) should be ≥20 mg/L. A vancomycin AUC/MIC .400 is recommended for MRSA infections; c Monitor plasma CPK levels at least once a week. Some experts recommend adding cloxacillin (2 g/4 h i.v.) or fosfomycin (2 g/6 h i.v.) to daptomycin in order to increase activity and avoid the development of daptomycin resistance; d Daptomycin and fosfomycin are not available in some European countries; e Rifampin is believed to play a special role in prosthetic device infection because it helps eradicate bacteria attached to foreign material.157 The sole use of rifampin is associated with a high frequency of microbial resistance and is not recommended. Rifampin increases the hepatic metabolism of warfarin and other drugs; f Renal function and serum gentamicin concentrations should be monitored once/week (twice/week in patients with renal failure); g Paediatric doses should not exceed adult doses; h Penicillin desensitization can be attempted in stable patients; i Class of recommendation; j Level of evidence; k Reference(s) supporting recommendations. ** No clinical benefit of adding rifampicin or gentamicin ESC Guidelines 3095 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 22. There have been two important advances in recent years. First is the demonstration, in several cohort studies of E. faecalis IE including hundreds of cases, that ampicillin plus ceftriaxone is as effective as ampicillin plus gentamicin for non-HLAR E. faecalis IE. It is also safer, without any nephrotoxicity.183 – 185 In addition, this is the combin- ation of choice for treating HLAR E. faecalis IE. Second, the total dai- ly dose of gentamicin can be given in a single daily dose instead of the two or three divided doses recommended up to now, and the length of the treatment for non-HLAR E. faecalis IE may be safely shortened from 4–6 weeks to 2 weeks, reducing the rates of nephrotoxicity to very low levels.129,186,187 Beta-lactam and vancomycin resistance are mainly observed in E. faecium. Since dual resistance is rare, beta-lactam might be used against vancomycin-resistant strains and vice versa. Varying results have been reported with quinupristin–dalfopristin (not active against E. faecalis), linezolid, daptomycin (combined with ampicillin, ertapenem or ceftaroline) and tigecycline. Again, these situations require the expertise of an ID specialist. 7.9 Gram-negative bacteria 7.9.1 HACEK-related species HACEK Gram-negative bacilli are fastidious organisms and the la- boratory should be made aware that infection with these agents is under consideration, as specialist investigations may be required (see also section 5). Because they grow slowly, standard MIC tests may be difficult to interpret. Some HACEK-group bacilli produce beta-lactamases, and ampicillin is therefore no longer the first-line option. Conversely, they are susceptible to ceftriaxone, other third-generation cephalosporins and quinolones; the standard treatment is ceftriaxone 2 g/day for 4 weeks in NVE and for 6 Table 18 Antibiotic treatment of infective endocarditis due to Enterococcus spp. Antibiotic Dosage and route Duration, weeks Classg Levelh Ref.i Comments Beta-lactam and gentamicin-susceptible strains (for resistant isolates see a,b,c ) Amoxicillin* with Gentamicind 200 mg/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose 4–6 I B 6,8, 129, 135, 136, 186 6-week therapy recommended for patients with .3 months symptoms or PVE 2–6** I B Paediatric doses:e Ampicillin 300 mg/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 equally divided doses Gentamicin 3 mg/kg/ day i.v. or i.m. in 3 equally divided doses Ampicillin with Ceftriaxone 200 mg/kg/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 4 g/day i.v. or i.m. in 2 doses 6 I B 183– 185 This combination is active against Enterococcus faecalis strains with and without HLAR, being the combination of choice in patients with HLAR E. faecalis endocarditis. This combination is not active against E. faecium 6 I B Paediatric doses:e Amoxicillin as above Ceftriaxone 100 mg/ kg/12 h i.v. or i.m. Vancomycinf with Gentamicind 30 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2 doses 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose Paediatric doses:e Vancomycin 40 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2–3 equally divided doses. Gentamicin as above 6 I C 6 I C HLAR: high-level aminoglycoside resistance; IE: infective endocarditis; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; PBP: penicillin binding protein; PVE: prosthetic valve endocarditis. a High-level resistance to gentamicin (MIC .500 mg/L): if susceptible to streptomycin, replace gentamicin with streptomycin 15 mg/kg/day in two equally divided doses. b Beta-lactam resistance: (i) if due to beta-lactamase production, replace ampicillin with ampicillin–sulbactam or amoxicillin with amoxicillin–clavulanate; (ii) if due to PBP5 alteration, use vancomycin-based regimens. c Multiresistance to aminoglycosides, beta-lactams and vancomycin: suggested alternatives are (i) daptomycin 10 mg/kg/day plus ampicillin 200 mg/kg/day i.v. in four to six doses; (ii) linezolid 2 × 600 mg/day i.v. or orally for ≥8 weeks (IIa, C) (monitor haematological toxicity); (iii) quinupristin–dalfopristin 3 × 7.5 mg/kg/day for ≥8 weeks. Quinupristin– dalfopristin is not active against E. faecalis; (iv) for other combinations (daptomycin plus ertapenem or ceftaroline), consult infectious diseases specialists. d Monitor serum levels of aminoglycosides and renal function as indicated in Table 16. e Paediatric doses should not exceed adult doses. f Monitor serum vancomycin concentrations as stated in Table 16. g Class of recommendation. h Level of evidence. i Reference(s) supporting recommendations. *Or ampicillin, same dosages as amoxicillin. **Some experts recommend giving gentamicin for only 2 weeks (IIa, B). ESC Guidelines3096 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 23. weeks in PVE. If they do not produce beta-lactamase, ampicillin (12 g/day i.v. in four or six doses) plus gentamicin (3 mg/kg/day di- vided into two or three doses) for 4–6 weeks is an option. Cipro- floxacin (400 mg/8–12 h i.v. or 750 mg/12 h orally) is a less well-validated alternative.188,189 7.9.2 Non-HACEK species The International Collaboration on Endocarditis (ICE) reported non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria in 49 of 2761 (1.8%) IE cases.190 Recommended treatment is early surgery plus long-term (at least 6 weeks) therapy with bactericidal combinations of beta- lactams and aminoglycosides, sometimes with additional quino- lones or cotrimoxazole. In vitro bactericidal tests and monitoring of serum antibiotic concentrations may be helpful. Because of their rarity and severity, these conditions should be discussed by the Endocarditis Team or with an ID specialist. 7.10 Blood culture–negative infective endocarditis The main causes of BCNIE are summarized in section 5.4.2.191,192 Treatment options are summarized in Table 19.192,193 Con- sultation with an ID specialist from the Endocarditis Team is recommended. 7.11 Fungi Fungi are most frequently observed in PVE and in IE affecting i.v. drug abusers (IVDAs) and immunocompromised patients.198 Candida and Aspergillus spp. predominate, the latter resulting in BCNIE.199,200 Mortality is very high (.50%), and treatment necessitates combined antifungal administration and surgical valve replacement.135,198 – 200 Antifungal therapy for Candida IE includes liposomal amphotericin B (or other lipid formulations) with or without flucytosine or an echinocandin at high doses; and for Aspergillus IE, voriconazole is the drug of choice and some experts recommend the addition of an echinocandin or amphotericin B.135,198,200,201 Suppressive long- term treatment with oral azoles (fluconazole for Candida and voriconazole for Aspergillus) is recommended, sometimes for life.135,198,201 Consultation with an ID specialist from the Endocardi- tis Team is recommended. 7.12 Empirical therapy Treatment of IE should be started promptly. Three sets of blood cul- tures should be drawn at 30-min intervals before initiation of anti- biotics.202 The initial choice of empirical treatment depends on several considerations: (1) Whether the patient has received previous antibiotic therapy. (2) Whether the infection affects a native valve or a prosthesis [and if so, when surgery was performed (early vs. late PVE)]. (3) The place of the infection (community, nosocomial, or non- nosocomial healthcare-associated IE) and knowledge of the lo- cal epidemiology, especially for antibiotic resistance and specific genuine culture-negative pathogens (Table 19). (4) Cloxacillin/cefazolin administration is associated with lower mortality rates than other beta-lactams, including Table 19 Antibiotic treatment of blood culture-negative infective endocarditis (adapted from Brouqui et al.193 ) Pathogens Proposed therapya Treatment outcome Brucella spp. Doxycycline (200 mg/24 h) plus cotrimoxazole (960 mg/12 h) plus rifampin (300–600/24 h) for ≥3–6 monthsb orally Treatment success as an antibody titre <1:60. Some authors recommend adding gentamicin for the 3 weeks. C.burnetii (agent of Q fever) Doxycycline (200 mg/24 h) plus hydroxychloroquine (200–600 mg/24 h)c orally (>18 months of treatment) Treatment success as anti-phase I IgG titre <1:200,and IgA and IgM titres <1:50. Bartonella spp.d Doxycycline 100 mg/12 h orally for 4 weeks plus gentamicin (3 mg/24 h) i.v.for 2 weeks Treatment success expected in ≥90%. Legionella spp. (500 mg/12 h) i.v.or orally for ≥6 weeks or clarithromycin (500 mg/12 h) i.v.for 2 weeks,then orally for 4 weeks plus rifampin (300–1200 mg/24 h) Optimal treatment unknown. Mycoplasma spp. (500 mg/12 h) i.v.or orally for ≥6 monthse Optimal treatment unknown. T.whipplei (agent ofWhipple’s disease)f Doxycycline (200 mg/24 h) plus hydroxychloroquine (200–600 mg/24 h)c orally for ≥18 months Long-term treatment,optimal duration unknown. ID ¼ infectious disease; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; Ig ¼ immunoglobulin; i.v. ¼ intravenous; U ¼ units. a Owing to the lack of large series, the optimal duration of treatment of IE due to these pathogens is unknown. The presented durations are based on selected case reports. Consultation with an ID specialist is recommended. b Addition of streptomycin (15 mg/kg/24 h in 2 doses) for the first few weeks is optional. c Doxycycline plus hydroxychloroquine (with monitoring of serum hydroxychloroquine levels) is significantly superior to doxycycline.194 d Several therapeutic regimens have been reported, including aminopenicillins (ampicillin or amoxicillin, 12 g/24 h i.v.) or cephalosporins (ceftriaxone, 2 g/24 h i.v.) combined with aminoglycosides (gentamicin or netilmicin).195 Dosages are as for streptococcal and enterococcal IE (Tables 16 and 18).196,197 e Newer fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) are more potent than ciprofloxacin against intracellular pathogens such as Mycoplasma spp., Legionella spp., and Chlamydia spp. f Treatment of Whipple’s IE remains highly empirical. In the case of central nervous system involvement, sulfadiazine 1.5 g/6 h orally must be added to doxycycline. An alternative therapy is ceftriaxone (2 g/24 h i.v.) for 2–4 weeks or penicillin G (2 million U/4 h) and streptomycin (1 g/24 h) i.v. for 2–4 weeks followed by cotrimoxazole (800 mg/12 h) orally. Trimethoprim is not active against T. whipplei. Successes have been reported with long-term therapy (.1 year). ESC Guidelines 3097 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 24. amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or ampicillin/sulbactam,203 and vancomycin for empirically treating MSSA bacteraemia/ endocarditis.159 Suggested regimens for empirical treatment in acute patients are summarized in Table 20. NVE and late PVE regimens should cover staphylococci, streptococci and enterococci. Early PVE or healthcare-associated IE regimens should cover methicillin-resistant staphylococci, enterococci and, ideally, non-HACEK Gram-negative pathogens. Once the pathogen is identified (usually in ,48 h), the antibiotic treatment must be adapted to its antimicrobial susceptibil- ity pattern. 7.13 Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy for infective endocarditis Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) is used to consoli- date antimicrobial therapy once critical infection-related complica- tions are under control (e.g. perivalvular abscesses, acute HF, septic emboli and stroke).204 – 207 Two different phases may be identified during the course of antibiotic therapy: (i) a first critical phase (the first 2 weeks of therapy), during which OPAT has a restricted indication; and (ii) a second, continuation phase (beyond 2 weeks of therapy), where OPAT may be feasible. Table 21 summarizes the salient questions to address when considering OPAT for IE.205 Table 20 Proposed antibiotic regimens for initial empirical treatment of infective endocarditis in acute severely ill patients (before pathogen identification)a Antibiotic Dosage and route Classb Levelc Comments Community-acquired native valves or late prosthetic valves (≥12 months post surgery) endocarditis Ampicillin with (Flu)cloxacillin or oxacillin with Gentamicind 12 g/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 12 g/day i.v. in 4–6 doses 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose IIa C Patients with BCNIE should be treated in consultation with an ID specialist. Vancomycind with Gentamicind 30–60 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2–3 doses 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose IIb C For penicillin-allergic patients Early PVE (<12 months post surgery) or nosocomial and non-nosocomial healthcare associated endocarditis Vancomycind with Gentamicind with Rifampin 30 mg/kg/day i.v. in 2 doses 3 mg/kg/day i.v. or i.m. in 1 dose 900–1200 mg i.v. or orally in 2 or 3 divided doses IIb C Rifampin is only recommended for PVE and it should be started 3–5 days later than vancomycin and gentamicin has been suggested by some experts. In healthcare associated native valve endocarditis, some experts recommend in settings with a prevalence of MRSA infections .5% the combination of cloxacillin plus vancomycin until they have the final S. aureus identification BCNIE ¼ blood culture-negative infective endocarditis; ID ¼ infectious disease; i.m. ¼ intramuscular; i.v. ¼ intravenous; PVE ¼ prosthetic valve endocarditis. a If initial blood cultures are negative and there is no clinical response, consider BCNIE aetiology (see Section 7.10) and maybe surgery for molecular diagnosis and treatment, and extension of the antibiotic spectrum to blood culture-negative pathogens (doxycycline, quinolones) must be considered. b Class of recommendation. c Level of evidence. d Monitoring of gentamicin or vancomycin dosages is as described in Tables 16 and 17. Table 21 Criteria that determine suitability of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy for infective endocarditis (adapted from Andrews et al.205 ) Phase of treatment Guidelines for use Critical phase (weeks 0–2) • Complications occur during this phase • Preferred inpatient treatment during this phase • Consider OPAT if:oral streptococci or Streptococcus bovis,a native valve,b patient stable, no complications Continuation phase (beyond week 2) • Consider OPAT if medically stable • Do not consider OPAT if:HF,concerning echocardiographic features,neurological signs,or renal impairment Essential for OPAT • Educate patient and staff • Regular post-discharge evaluation (nurses 1/day, physicianc in charge 1 or 2/week)d • Prefer physician-directed programme,not home- infusion model HF ¼ heart failure; ID ¼ infectious disease; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; OPAT ¼ outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy; PVE ¼ prosthetic valve endocarditis. a For other pathogens, consultation with an ID specialist is recommended. b For patients with late PVE, consultation with an ID specialist is recommended. c Preferably from the Endocarditis Team. d General physician can see the patient once a week, if needed. ESC Guidelines3098 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 25. 8. Main complications of left-sided valve infective endocarditis and their management Surgical treatment is required in approximately half of the patients with IE because of severe complications.54 Reasons to consider early surgery in the active phase (i.e. while the patient is still receiv- ing antibiotic treatment) are to avoid progressive HF and irrevers- ible structural damage caused by severe infection and to prevent systemic embolism.6,54,115,208 –210 On the other hand, surgical ther- apy during the active phase of the disease is associated with signifi- cant risk. Surgery is justified in patients with high-risk features that make the possibility of cure with antibiotic treatment unlikely and who do not have co-morbid conditions or complications that make the prospect of recovery remote. Age per se is not a contra- indication to surgery.211 Early consultation with a cardiac surgeon is recommended in or- der to determine the best therapeutic approach. Identification of pa- tients requiring early surgery is frequently difficult and is an important objective of the ‘Heart Team’. Each case must be indivi- dualized and all factors associated with increased risk identified at the time of diagnosis. Frequently the need for surgery will be deter- mined by a combination of several high-risk features.211 In some cases, surgery needs to be performed on an emergency (within 24 h) or urgent (within a few days, ,7 days) basis, irrespect- ive of the duration of antibiotic treatment. In other cases, surgery can be postponed to allow 1 or 2 weeks of antibiotic treatment un- der careful clinical and echocardiographic observation before an elective surgical procedure is performed.63,115 The three main indi- cations for early surgery in IE are HF, uncontrolled infection and prevention of embolic events212– 216 (Table 22). 8.1 Heart failure 8.1.1 Heart failure in infective endocarditis HF is the most frequent complication of IE and represents the most common indication for surgery in IE.54 HF is observed in 42–60% of cases of NVE and is more often present when IE affects the aortic rather than the mitral valve.111,208,212 HF is mainly caused by new Table 22 Indications and timing of surgery in left-sided valve infective endocarditis (native valve endocarditis and prosthetic valve endocarditis) Indications for surgery Timinga Classb Levelc Ref.d 1. Heart failure Aortic or mitral NVE or PVE with severe acute regurgitation, obstruction or fistula causing refractory pulmonary oedema or cardiogenic shock Emergency I B 111,115, 213,216 Aortic or mitral NVE or PVE with severe regurgitation or obstruction causing symptoms of HF or echocardiographic signs of poor haemodynamic tolerance Urgent I B 37,115, 209,216, 220,221 2. Uncontrolled infection Locally uncontrolled infection (abscess, false aneurysm, fistula, enlarging vegetation) Urgent I B 37,209, 216 Infection caused by fungi or multiresistant organisms Urgent/ elective I C Persisting positive blood cultures despite appropriate antibiotic therapy and adequate control of septic metastatic foci Urgent IIa B 123 PVE caused by staphylococci or non-HACEK gram-negative bacteria Urgent/ elective IIa C 3. Prevention of embolism Aortic or mitral NVE or PVE with persistent vegetations .10 mm after one or more embolic episode despite appropriate antibiotic therapy Urgent I B 9,58,72, 113,222 Aortic or mitral NVE with vegetations .10 mm, associated with severe valve stenosis or regurgitation, and low operative risk Urgent IIa B 9 Aortic or mitral NVE or PVE with isolated very large vegetations (.30 mm) Urgent IIa B 113 Aortic or mitral NVE or PVE with isolated large vegetations (.15 mm) and no other indication for surgerye Urgent IIb C HACEK ¼ Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Haemophilus aphrophilus, Haemophilus paraphrophilus, Haemophilus influenzae, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Cardiobacterium hominis, Eikenella corrodens, Kingella kingae and Kingella denitrificans; HF ¼ heart failure; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; NVE ¼ native valve endocarditis; PVE ¼ prosthetic valve endocarditis. a Emergency surgery: surgery performed within 24 h; urgent surgery: within a few days; elective surgery: after at least 1–2 weeks of antibiotic therapy. b Class of recommendation. c Level of evidence. d Reference(s) supporting recommendations. e Surgery may be preferred if a procedure preserving the native valve is feasible. ESC Guidelines 3099 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 26. or worsening severe aortic or mitral regurgitation, although intra- cardiac fistulae213 and, more rarely, valve obstruction may also lead to HF. Valvular regurgitation in native IE may occur as a result of mitral chordal rupture, leaflet rupture (flail leaflet), leaflet perforation or interference of the vegetation mass with leaflet closure. A particular situation is infection of the anterior mitral leaflet secondary to an in- fected regurgitant jet of a primary aortic IE.214 Resultant aneurysm formation on the atrial side of the mitral leaflet may later lead to mitral perforation.215 Clinical presentation of HF may include dyspnoea, pulmonary oe- dema and cardiogenic shock.111,120 Among the large ICE Prospect- ive Cohort Study patients with HF and IE, 66% were in New York Heart Association class III or IV.216 In addition to clinical findings, TTE is of crucial importance for initial evaluation and follow-up.64 Valve perforation, secondary mitral lesions and aneurysms are best assessed using TOE.64,65,214 Echocardiography is also useful to evaluate the haemodynamic consequences of valvular dysfunc- tion, measurement of pulmonary artery pressure, detection of peri- cardial effusion and assessment and monitoring of left ventricular systolic function and left and right heart filling pressures.64 B-type natriuretic peptide has potential use in the diagnosis and monitoring of HF in IE.217 Both elevated levels of cardiac troponins and B-type natriuretic peptide are associated with adverse outcomes in IE.218,219 Moderate to severe HF is the most important predictor of in-hospital, 6-month and 1-year mortality.52,109,111,117,208 8.1.2 Indications and timing of surgery in the presence of heart failure in infective endocarditis (Table 22) Identification of surgical candidates and timing of surgery decisions should preferably be made by the Endocarditis Team.118 The pres- ence of HF indicates surgery in the majority of patients with IE and is the principal indication for urgent surgery.115,124 Surgery is indicated in patients with HF caused by severe aortic or mitral regurgitation, intracardiac fistulae or valve obstruction caused by vegetations. Sur- gery is also indicated in patients with severe acute aortic or mitral regurgitation without clinical HF but with echocardiographic signs of elevated left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (e.g. premature closure of the mitral valve), high left atrial pressure or moderate to severe pulmonary hypertension. These rules apply in both NVE and PVE.37,220,221 Surgery must be performed on an emergency basis, irrespective of the status of infection, when patients are in persistent pul- monary oedema or cardiogenic shock despite medical therapy.63 Surgery must be performed on an urgent basis when HF is less severe. Urgent surgery should also be performed in patients with severe aortic or mitral insufficiency with large vegetations, even without HF.9 In patients with well-tolerated (New York Heart Association class I or II) severe valvular regurgitation and no other reasons for surgery, medical management with antibiotics under strict clinical and echocardiographic observation is a good option, although early surgery may be an option in selected patients at low risk for surgery. Elective surgery should be considered depending on the tolerance of the valve lesion and according to the recommendations of the ESC Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease.55 In summary, HF is the most frequent and among the most severe complications of IE. Unless severe co-morbidity exists, the pres- ence of HF is an indication for early surgery in NVE and PVE, even in patients with cardiogenic shock. 8.2 Uncontrolled infection Uncontrolled infection is one of the most feared complications of IE and is the second most frequent cause for surgery.54 Uncontrolled infection is considered to be present when there is persisting infec- tion and when there are signs of locally uncontrolled infection. Infec- tion due to resistant or very virulent organisms often results in uncontrolled infection. 8.2.1 Persisting infection The definition of persisting infection is arbitrary and consists of fever and persisting positive cultures after 7–10 days of antibiotic treat- ment. Persisting fever is a frequent problem observed during treat- ment of IE. Usually, temperature normalizes within 7–10 days under specific antibiotic therapy. Persisting fever may be related to several factors, including inadequate antibiotic therapy, resistant organisms, infected lines, locally uncontrolled infection, embolic complications or extracardiac site of infection and adverse reaction to antibiotics.3 Management of persisting fever includes replacement of i.v. lines, re- peat laboratory measurements, blood cultures, echocardiography, and the search for an intracardiac or extracardiac focus of infection. 8.2.2 Perivalvular extension in infective endocarditis Perivalvular extension of IE is the most frequent cause of uncon- trolled infection and is associated with a poor prognosis and high likelihood of the need for surgery. Perivalvular complications in- clude abscess formation, pseudoaneurysms and fistulae (defined in Table 11).223,224 Perivalvular abscess is more common in aortic IE (10–40% in NVE)3,225 – 227 and is frequent in PVE (56–100%).3,6 In mitral IE, peri- valvular abscesses are usually located posteriorly or laterally.228 In aortic IE, perivalvular extension occurs most frequently in the mitral-aortic intervalvular fibrosa.229 Serial echocardiographic stud- ies have shown that abscess formation is a dynamic process, starting with aortic root wall thickening and extending to the development of fistulae.229 In one study, the most important risk factors for peri- valvular complications were prosthetic valve, aortic location and in- fection with CoNS.230 Pseudoaneurysms and fistulae are severe complications of IE and are frequently associated with very severe valvular and perivalvular damage.213,231 – 233 The frequency of fistula formation in IE has been reported to be 1.6%, with S. aureus being the most commonly asso- ciated organism (46%).233 Despite high rates of surgery in this population (87%), hospital mortality remains high (41%).213,233,234 Other complications due to major extension of infection are less frequent and may include ventricular septal defect, third-degree atrio-ventricular block and acute coronary syndrome.223,224,234 Perivalvular extension should be suspected in cases with persist- ent unexplained fever or new atrio-ventricular block. Therefore an electrocardiogram should be performed frequently during continu- ing treatment, particularly in aortic IE. TOE, MSCT and PET/CT103 are particularly useful for the diagnosis of perivalvular complications, ESC Guidelines3100 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 27. while the sensitivity of TTE is ,50%225– 228 (see section 5). Indeed, perivalvular extension is frequently discovered on a systematic TOE. However, small abscesses can be missed, even using TOE, particu- larly those in a mitral location when there is co-existent annular calcification.101 8.2.3 Indications and timing of surgery in the presence of uncontrolled infection in infective endocarditis (Table 22) The results of surgery when the reason for the procedure is uncon- trolled infection are worse than when surgery is performed for other reasons.124,235 8.2.3.1 Persistent infection In some cases of IE, antibiotics alone are insufficient to eradicate the infection. Surgery has been indicated when fever and positive blood cultures persist for several days (7–10 days) despite an appropriate antibiotic regimen and when extracardiac abscesses (splenic, verte- bral, cerebral or renal) and other causes of fever have been excluded. However, the best timing for surgery in this difficult situ- ation is unclear. Recently it has been demonstrated that persistent blood cultures 48–72 h after initiation of antibiotics are an independ- ent risk factor for hospital mortality.123 These results suggest that sur- gery should be considered when blood cultures remain positive after 3 days of antibiotic therapy, after the exclusion of other causes of per- sistent positive blood cultures (adapted antibiotic regimen). 8.2.3.2 Signs of locally uncontrolled infection Signs of locally uncontrolled infection include increasing vegetation size, abscess formation, false aneurysms, and the creation of fistu- lae.213,236,237 Persistent fever is also usually present and surgery is recommended as soon as possible. Rarely when there are no other reasons for surgery and fever is easily controlled with antibiotics, small abscesses or false aneurysms can be treated conservatively un- der close clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. 8.2.3.3 Infection by microorganisms at low likelihood of being controlled by antimicrobial therapy Surgery is indicated in fungal IE,238,239 in cases of multiresistant or- ganisms (e.g. MRSA or vancomycin-resistant enterococci) or in the rare infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria. Surgery should also be considered in PVE caused by staphylococci or non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria. In NVE caused by S. aureus, surgery is indi- cated if a favourable early response to antibiotics is not achieved161,240,241 (Table 22). Finally, surgery should be performed in patients with PVE and S. aureus infection. In summary, uncontrolled infection is most frequently related to perivalvular extension or ‘difficult-to-treat’ organisms. Unless se- vere co-morbidity exists, the presence of locally uncontrolled in- fection is an indication for early surgery in patients with IE. 8.3 Prevention of systemic embolism 8.3.1 Embolic events in infective endocarditis Embolic events are a frequent and life-threatening complication of IE related to the migration of cardiac vegetations. The brain and spleen are the most frequent sites of embolism in left-sided IE, while pul- monary embolism is frequent in native right-sided and pacemaker lead IE. Stroke is a severe complication and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.105 Conversely, embolic events may be totally silent in 20–50% of patients with IE, especially those affecting the splenic or cerebral circulation, and can be diagnosed by non-invasive imaging.83,85,242 Thus systematic abdominal and cere- bral CT scanning may be helpful. However, contrast media should be used with caution in patients with renal impairment or haemo- dynamic instability because of the risk of worsening renal impair- ment in combination with antibiotic nephrotoxicity. Overall, embolic risk is very high in IE, with embolic events occur- ring in 20–50% of patients.72,242 – 249 However, the risk of new events (occurring after initiation of antibiotic therapy) is only 6– 21%.72,115,243 A study from the ICE group250 demonstrated that the incidence of stroke in patients receiving appropriate antimicro- bial therapy was 4.8/1000 patient-days in the first week of therapy, falling to 1.7/1000 patient-days in the second week, and further thereafter. 8.3.2 Predicting the risk of embolism Echocardiography plays a key role in predicting embolic events,72,115,246 –252 although prediction remains difficult in the indi- vidual patient. Several factors are associated with increased risk of embolism, including the size and mobility of vegetations,72,242,246–253 the location of the vegetation on the mitral valve,72,246 – 249 the in- creasing or decreasing size of the vegetation under antibiotic ther- apy,72,253 particular microorganisms (S. aureus,72 S. bovis,254 Candida spp.), previous embolism,72 multivalvular IE246 and biological mar- kers.255 Among these, the size and mobility of the vegetations are the most potent independent predictors of a new embolic event.253 Patients with vegetations .10 mm in length are at higher risk of em- bolism,58,253 and this risk is even higher in patients with larger (.15 mm) and mobile vegetations, especially in staphylococcal IE affecting the mitral valve.219 A recent study113 found that the risk of neurological complications was particularly high in patients with very large (.30 mm length) vegetations. Several factors should be taken into account when assessing em- bolic risk. In a recent study of 847 patients with IE, the 6-month in- cidence of new embolism was 8.5%.222 Six factors (age, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, previous embolism, vegetation length and S. aureus infection) were associated with an increased embolic risk and were used to create an ‘embolic risk calculator’.222 Whatever the risk factors observed in an individual patient, it must be re-emphasized that the risk of new embolism is highest during the first days following initiation of antibiotic therapy and rapidly de- creases thereafter, particularly beyond 2 weeks,58,72,243,250 although some risk persists indefinitely while vegetations remain present, par- ticularly for very large vegetations.113 For this reason, the benefits of surgery to prevent embolism are greatest during the first 2 weeks of antibiotic therapy, when embolic risk peaks. 8.3.3 Indications and timing of surgery to prevent embolism in infective endocarditis (Table 22) Avoiding embolic events is difficult since the majority occur before admission.222 The best means to reduce the risk of an embolic event is the prompt institution of appropriate antibiotic therapy.38 While promising,256,257 the addition of antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the risk of embolism in the only published randomized study.258 ESC Guidelines 3101 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 28. The exact role of early surgery in preventing embolic events re- mains controversial. In the Euro Heart Survey, vegetation size was one of the reasons for surgery in 54% of patients with NVE and in 25% of those with PVE,54 but was rarely the only reason. The value of early surgery in an isolated large vegetation is controversial. A re- cent randomized trial demonstrated that early surgery in patients with large vegetations significantly reduced the risk of death and em- bolic events compared with conventional therapy.9 However, the patients studied were at low risk and there was no significant differ- ence in all-cause mortality at 6 months in the early surgery and conventional-treatment groups. Finally, the decision to operate early for prevention of embolism must take into account the presence of previous embolic events, other complications of IE, the size and mobility of the vegetation, the likelihood of conservative surgery and the duration of antibiotic therapy.115 The overall benefits of surgery should be weighed against the operative risk and must consider the clinical status and co-morbidity of the patient. The main indications and timing of surgery to prevent embolism are given in Table 22. Surgery is indicated in patients with persisting vegetations .10 mm after one or more clinical or silent embolic events despite appropriate antibiotic treatment.58 Surgery may be considered in patients with large (.15 mm) isolated vegetations on the aortic or mitral valve, although this decision is more difficult and must be very carefully individualized according to the probabil- ity of conservative surgery.58 Surgery undertaken for the prevention of embolism must be per- formed very early, during the first few days following initiation of antibiotic therapy (urgent surgery), as the risk of embolism is highest at this time.58,72 In summary, embolism is very frequent in IE, complicating 20– 50% of cases of IE, but falling to 6–21% after initiation of antibiot- ic therapy. The risk of embolism is highest during the first 2 weeks of antibiotic therapy and is clearly related to the size and mobility of the vegetation, although other risk factors exist. The decision to operate early to prevent embolism is always difficult and spe- cific for the individual patient. Governing factors include the size and mobility of the vegetation, previous embolism, type of micro- organism and duration of antibiotic therapy. 9. Other complications of infective endocarditis 9.1 Neurological complications Symptomatic neurological complications occur in 15–30% of patients with IE and are mainly the consequence of embolism from vegeta- tions.110,113,259 Neurological manifestations occur before or at IE diag- nosis in a majority of cases, but new or recurrent events can also take place later in the course of IE. Clinical presentation is variable and may include multiple symptoms or signs in the same patient, but focal signs predominate and ischaemic strokes are most commonly diagnosed. Transient ischaemic attack, intracerebral or subarachnoidal haemor- rhage, brain abscess, meningitis and toxic encephalopathy are also seen, and firm evidence supports that additional clinically silent cere- bral embolisms occur in 35–60% of IE patients.83,85,90 S. aureus IE is more frequently associated with neurological complications compared with IE caused by other bacteria. Vegetation length and mobility also correlate with embolic tendency.88,242 Neurological complications are associated with an excess mortality, as well as sequelae, particularly in the case of stroke.113,259 Rapid diagnosis and initiation of appropriate antibiotics are of major importance to prevent a first or recurrent neurological complication.250 Early surgery in high-risk patients is the second mainstay of embolism prevention, while antithrombotic drugs have no role (see section 12.7). Successful management of IE requires a combined medical and surgical approach in a substantial proportion of patients. Following a neurological event, the indication for cardiac surgery often remains or is strengthened, but must be balanced with perioperative risk and postoperative prognosis. Randomized studies are not possible and cohort studies suffer from bias that can only be partly compensated for by statistical methods.115,260 – 262 However, the risk of post- operative neurological deterioration is low after a silent cerebral emboli or transient ischaemic attack, and surgery is recommended without delay if an indication remains.105 After an ischaemic stroke, cardiac surgery is not contraindicated unless the neurological progno- sis is judged too poor.263 Evidence regarding the optimal time interval between stroke and cardiac surgery is conflicting, but recent data fa- vour early surgery.9,115 If cerebral haemorrhage has been excluded by cranial CT and neurological damage is not severe (i.e. coma), surgery indicated for HF, uncontrolled infection, abscess or persistent high embolic risk should not be delayed and can be performed with a low neurological risk (3–6%) and good probability of complete neurological recovery.105,263 Conversely, in cases with intracranial haemorrhage, neurological prognosis is worse and surgery should generally be postponed for at least 1 month,264,265 although one re- cent study has reported a relatively low risk of neurological deterior- ation in IE patients undergoing surgery within 2 weeks after an intracranial haemorrhage.266 The Task Force has thus decided to adapt the level of evidence to a class IIa. If urgent cardiac surgery is needed, close cooperation with the neurosurgical team and the Endocarditis Team is mandatory. Table 23 and Figure 4 summarize the recommended management of neurological complications in IE. Cerebral imaging is mandatory for any suspicion of neurological complication of IE. CT scanning, with or without contrast agent, is most often performed. The higher sensitivity of MRI, with or with- out contrast gadolinium enhancement, allows for better detection and analysis of cerebral lesions in patients with neurological symp- toms, and this may have an impact on the timing of surgery89 (see section 5). In patients without neurological symptoms, cerebral MRI often detects lesions that may change the therapeutic strategy; in particular, the indications and timing of surgery.85,90 Cerebral MRI often detects microbleeds (round T2* hypointensities with a diam- eter ≤10 mm) in patients with IE. The lack of association with par- enchymal haemorrhage and the absence of postoperative neurological complications in patients with microbleeds suggest that microbleeds should not be interpreted as active bleeding and should not lead to postponed surgery when this is indicated.89,90 In summary, symptomatic neurological events develop in 15–30% of all patients with IE and additional silent events are frequent. Stroke (ischaemic and haemorrhagic) is associated with excess mortality. Rapid diagnosis and initiation of appropriate antibiotics are of major importance to prevent a first or recurrent neurological complication. After a first neurological event, cardiac surgery, if ESC Guidelines3102 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 29. indicated, is generally not contraindicated, except when extensive brain damage or intracranial haemorrhage is present. 9.2 Infectious aneurysms Infectious (mycotic) aneurysms result from septic arterial embolism to the intraluminal space or vasa vasorum or from subsequent spread of infection through the intimal vessels. Infectious aneurysms are typ- ically thin walled and friable and, as such, exhibit a high tendency to rupture and haemorrhage. No predictor of rupture has been identi- fied and, in contrast to non-infectious aneurysms, size does not ap- pear to be a reliable predictor of potential rupture.268,269 An intracranial location is most common and the reported fre- quency of 2–4% is probably an underestimation since some infec- tious aneurysms are clinically silent.267,270 Early detection and treatment of infectious aneurysms is essential given the high morbid- ity and mortality rate secondary to rupture. Clinical presentation is highly variable (i.e. focal neurological deficit, headache, confusion, seizures), so imaging should be systematically performed to detect intracranial infectious aneurysms in any case of IE with neurological symptoms.268 Cerebral CT and MRI both reliably diagnose infectious aneurysms with good sensitivity and specificity.271 However, conventional angi- ography remains the gold standard and should be performed when non-invasive techniques are negative and suspicion remains.267 Owing to the lack of randomized trials, there is no widely accepted standard management for infectious aneurysms. Thus management should be provided by an Endocarditis Team and tailored to the indi- vidual patient. Some infectious aneurysms may resolve during anti- biotic treatment, while others require surgical or endovascular intervention depending on the occurrence of rupture and the loca- tion in the artery bed, as well as the clinical status of the patient.268,269 Regarding intracranial infectious aneurysms, ruptured aneurysms must be treated immediately by surgical or endovascular procedures. Unruptured infectious aneurysms should be followed by serial cere- bral imaging under antibiotic therapy. If the size of the aneurysm de- creases or resolves completely, surgical or endovascular intervention is usually unnecessary. However, if the size of the aneurysm increases or remains unchanged, it is likely that the patient will require interven- tion. On the other hand, if the infectious aneurysm is voluminous and symptomatic, neurosurgery or endovascular therapy is recom- mended.272 Finally, if early cardiac surgery is required, preoperative endovascular intervention might be considered before the proced- ure, depending on associated cerebral lesions, the haemodynamic sta- tus of the patient and the risk of the procedure. 9.3 Splenic complications Splenic infarcts are common and very often asymptomatic. Persist- ent or recurrent fever, abdominal pain and bacteraemia suggest the presence of complications (splenic abscess or rupture). Although Neurological complication • Heart failure • Uncontrolled infection • Abscess • High embolic risk • Intracranial haemorrhage • Coma • Severe comorbilities • Stroke with severe damage No Yes Yes No Consider surgery (see Table 22) Conservative treatment and monitoring • Clincal assessment • Cerebral CT scan / MRI • TTE / TOE CT = computed tomography;IE = infective endocarditis;MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; TOE = transoesophageal echocardiography;TTE = transthoracic echocardiography. Figure 4 Therapeutic strategies for patients with infective endo- carditis and neurological complications. Table 23 Management of neurological complications of infective endocarditis Recommendations Classa Levelb Ref.c After a silent embolism or transient ischaemic attack, cardiac surgery, if indicated, is recommended without delay I B 105, 263 Neurosurgery or endovascular therapy is recommended for very large, enlarging or ruptured intracranial infectious aneurysms I C Following intracranial haemorrhage, surgery should generally be postponed for ≥1 month IIa B 264–266 After a stroke, surgery indicated for HF, uncontrolled infection, abscess, or persistent high embolic risk should be considered without any delay as long as coma is absent and the presence of cerebral haemorrhage has been excluded by cranial CT or MRI IIa B 9,263 Intracranial infectious aneurysms should be looked for in patients with IE and neurological symptoms. CT or MR angiography should be considered for diagnosis. If non-invasive techniques are negative and the suspicion of intracranial aneurysm remains, conventional angiography should be considered IIa B 267, 268 CT ¼ computed tomography; HF ¼ heart failure; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; MR ¼ magnetic resonance; MRI ¼ magnetic resonance imaging. a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. c Reference(s) supporting recommendations. ESC Guidelines 3103 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 30. splenic emboli are common, splenic abscesses are rare. Persistent or recurrent fever and bacteraemia suggest the diagnosis. These pa- tients should be evaluated by abdominal CT, MRI or ultrasound. Re- cently PET has proved useful for the diagnosis of splenic metastasic infection in patients with IE.273 Treatment consists of appropriate antibiotic regimens. Splenectomy may be considered for splenic rupture or large abscesses, which respond poorly to antibiotics alone, and should be performed before valvular surgery unless the latter is urgent. Rarely, splenectomy and valvular surgery are per- formed during the same operative time. Percutaneous drainage is an alternative for high-risk surgical candidates.274,275 9.4 Myocarditis and pericarditis Cardiac failure may be due to myocarditis, which is frequently asso- ciated with abscess formation or immune reaction. Ventricular arrhyth- mias may indicate myocardial involvement and imply a poor prognosis. Myocardial involvement is best assessed using TTE and cardiac MRI. The inflammatory response, HF, periannular complications or in- fection itself can cause pericardial effusion, which could be a sign of more severe IE. Rarely, ruptured pseudoaneurysms or fistulae may communicate with the pericardium, with dramatic and often fatal consequences. Purulent pericarditis is rare and may necessitate sur- gical drainage.276,277 9.5 Heart rhythm and conduction disturbances Conduction disorders are uncommon complications of IE. Accord- ing to data from patient registries, their frequency is between 1% and 15% of cases and their presence is associated with worse prog- nosis and higher mortality.278 Conduction abnormalities (mainly first-, second-, and third- degree atrio-ventricular blocks, rarely bundle branch blocks) are due to spread of the infection beyond the endocardium, from valves to the conduction pathways, and are generally associated with peri- valvular complications. Complete atrio-ventricular block is most of- ten associated with involvement of the left-sided valves (aortic, 36%; mitral, 33%).278 This is because of the anatomical relationship with the atrio-ventricular node, which is close to the non-coronary aortic cusp and the anterior mitral leaflet. In a study of patients with IE and complete atrio-ventricular block, pathology workup revealed the presence of an infection, frequently accompanied by abscesses and fistulae, affecting the conduction pathways; in cases of paroxys- mal atrio-ventricular block, inflammation was observed at this level, which would explain the reversibility of the event.279 The occurrence of conduction abnormalities during electrocar- diographic monitoring in patients with endocarditis can therefore alert physicians to the appearance of perivalvular complications. In the case of embolization of vegetation fragments into a coron- ary artery, the resulting myocardial ischaemia can be the substrate for the onset of tachyarrhythmias.280 Atrial fibrillation can be observed in patients with IE and may be present before IE or occur as a complication of IE. Atrial fibrillation has been reported to be more frequent in the elderly and to be asso- ciated with a poor prognosis.281 More recently, in a large prospective series of IE, atrial fibrillation was found to be associated with an increased embolic risk, as were other factors (age, diabetes, previous embolism, vegetation length and S. aureus infection).222 Consequently, atrial fibrillation has the potential to increase the risk of both congest- ive HF and embolism in IE. However, there is no specific study on this situation and no international consensus for the care of these patients. The management of anticoagulation therapy in these patients should be taken on an individual basis by the Endocarditis Team. 9.6 Musculoskeletal manifestations Musculoskeletal symptoms (arthralgia, myalgia, back pain) are fre- quent during IE.282,283 Rheumatological manifestations may be the first manifestations of IE and can delay its diagnosis, especially when classic manifestations are less evident and a variety of anti- bodies (i.e. positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody test) in- duced by infections284,285 are present. Arthralgia occurs in about 10% of patients, while myalgia is present in 12–15%.282,286 Back pain is observed in about 13% of cases, and lumbar pain is the most common symptom in patients with IE and vertebral osteomye- litis.282,283,287,288 Peripheral arthritis occurs in about 14% of cases.282 The prevalence of spondylodiscitis in patients with IE is about 1.8–15%.282 Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis occurs in 4.6–19% of IE patients with a high incidence of streptococcal and staphylococcal bacteraemia.283,287 IE can complicate or be compli- cated by pyogenic osteomyelitis. The prevalence of IE in vertebral osteomyelitis is higher288,289 in the presence of Streptococcus viridans IE. CT, but preferably MRI, of the spine or whole-body 18 F-FDG- PET/CT290 should be performed in IE patients with back or bone pain. Conversely, echocardiography should be performed in patients with a definite diagnosis of pyogenic spondylodiscitis/ osteomyelitis and underlying cardiac conditions predisposing to IE. In definite spondylodiscitis and osteomyelitis, prolonged antibiot- ic therapy is generally required until no signs of inflammatory activity are detected by 18 FDG PET/CT or MRI. Other musculoskeletal manifestations are less common in IE and include sacroiliitis in about 1% of cases, a condition mimicking polymyalgia rheumatica with pain and morning stiffness of the shoulders and hips, proximal muscle weakness in about 0.9% of cases and cutaneous leucocytoclastic vas- culitis (purpuric skin lesions) in 3.6% of cases.282,289 9.7 Acute renal failure Acute renal failure is a common complication of IE and may worsen the prognosis of IE. The onset of renal dysfunction is independently associated with increased risk of in-hospital death291,292 and post- operative events.293 Acute renal dysfunction occurs in about 6–30% of pa- tients.291,292,294,295 Causes are often multifactorial:296,297 (i) immune complex and vasculitic glomerulonephritis; (ii) renal infarction, mostly due to septic emboli, occurring at any time during the course of the disease; (iii) haemodynamic impairment in cases with HF or severe sepsis or after cardiac surgery; (iv) antibiotic toxicity (acute interstitial nephritis), notably related to aminoglycosides, vancomy- cin (synergistic toxicity with aminoglycosides) and even high-dose penicillin; and (v) nephrotoxicity of contrast agents used for imaging purposes. Haemodialysis may be required in some patients with advanced renal failure and is associated with high mortality.295 Acute renal ESC Guidelines3104 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 31. failure of a milder degree is often reversible.295 To mitigate this com- plication, antibiotic doses should be adjusted for creatinine clear- ance with careful monitoring of serum levels (aminoglycosides and vancomycin). Imaging with nephrotoxic contrast agents should be avoided when possible in patients with haemodynamic impairment or previous renal insufficiency. 10. Surgical therapy: principles and methods 10.1 Operative risk assessment Few studies have evaluated the utility of operative risk scores in the setting of IE. Although EuroSCORE II is frequently used,298 it was de- veloped and validated predominantly for coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery. Risk scores specific to IE surgery have been developed: (i) from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database using 13 617 patients299 and (ii) an additional NVE risk score from a single centre using 440 patients by De Feo et al.300 A study com- pared the prognostic utility of these contemporary risk scores for mortality and morbidity after IE surgery in 146 patients.301 Here, al- though EuroSCORE II discriminated mortality and postoperative morbidity (in particular, stroke), the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endocarditis score and the De Feo et al. score300 performed better at predicting operative mortality after surgery for active IE. How- ever, the relevance of these findings is limited by the small number of patients involved. Similar to previous studies, preoperative use of inotropes or an intra-aortic balloon pump, prior coronary artery by- pass surgery and renal failure requiring dialysis were independent predictors of operative and long-term mortality. Finally, although no single operative risk score is perfect, pre- operative assessment of operative risk is of utmost importance. Although the theoretical indications for surgery in IE are clear (Table 22), their practical application relies largely on the clinical status of the patient, the patient’s co-morbidities and the patient’s operative risk. 10.2 Preoperative and perioperative management 10.2.1 Coronary angiography Coronary angiography is recommended according to the ESC Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease55 in men .40 years, in post-menopausal women and in patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor or a history of coronary artery dis- ease. Exceptions arise when there are aortic vegetations that may be dislodged during catheterization or when emergency surgery is necessary. In these situations, high-resolution CT may be used to rule out significant coronary artery disease in haemodynamically stable patients.55 10.2.2 Extracardiac infection If a primary focus of infection likely to be responsible for IE has been identified, it must be eradicated before cardiac surgical intervention unless valve surgery is urgent. In any case, it should be eradicated before the end of antibiotic therapy. 10.2.3 Intraoperative echocardiography Intraoperative TOE is most useful to determine the exact location and extent of infection, guide surgery, assess the result and help in early postoperative follow-up.73 10.3 Surgical approach and techniques The two primary objectives of surgery are total removal of infected tissues and reconstruction of cardiac morphology, including repair or replacement of the affected valve(s). Where infection is confined to the valve cusps or leaflets, any method to repair or replace the valve may be used. However, valve repair is favoured whenever possible, particularly when IE affects the mitral or tricuspid valve without significant destruction.302 Perfora- tions in a single valve cusp or leaflet may be repaired with an untreat- ed or glutaraldehyde-treated autologous or bovine pericardial patch. Isolated or multiple ruptured chordae may be replaced by polytetrafluoroethylene neo-chordae. More extensive destruction of a single leaflet or the presence of an abscess is not necessarily a contraindication for valve repair.302 Rather, intraoperative assessment of the valve after debridement is of paramount importance in order to evaluate whether the re- maining tissue is of sufficient quality to achieve a durable repair. The need for a patch to achieve a competent valve, whether pericar- dial, tricuspid autograft or a flipped-over mitral patch, has not been associated with worse results in terms of recurrence of IE or mitral regurgitation when performed by experienced surgeons.303 To avoid paravalvular leaks in complex cases with locally uncon- trolled infection, total excision of infected and devitalized tissue should be followed by valve replacement and repair of associated defects to secure valve fixation.304 Mechanical and biological prostheses have similar operative mor- tality.305 Therefore the Task Force does not favour any specific valve substitute but recommends a tailored approach for each individual patient and clinical situation. The use of foreign material should be kept to a minimum. Small abscesses can be closed directly, but larger cavities should be allowed to drain into the pericardium or circulation. In mitral valve IE, successful valve repair can be achieved by ex- perienced teams in up to 80% of patients, but such results may not be matched in non-specialist centres.306 Moreover, although surgery may be deferred if control of the infection by antibiotic ther- apy appears evident in the absence of cardiac failure, early operation has been associated in recent reports with a repair rate of 61–80% and improved in-hospital and long-term survival.209,210,302,303,307 Re- sidual mitral regurgitation should be assessed using intraoperative TOE. Mitral subannular, annular or supraannular tissue defects are preferably repaired with autologous or bovine pericardium, a pros- thetic valve then being secured to the reconstructed/reinforced an- nulus, if necessary. The choice of technique depends on the vertical extension of the lesion/tissue defect.308 –310 The use of mitral valve homografts and pulmonary autografts (Ross II procedure) has been suggested,311,312 but their application is limited by poor availability and difficulty of the surgical technique, and the results have not been consistent. In aortic IE, replacement of the aortic valve using a mechanical or biological prosthesis is the technique of choice. Nevertheless, in ESC Guidelines 3105 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 32. centres with great expertise, aortic valve repair in IE can be achieved in up to 33% of patients. However, experience with aortic valve re- pair in this setting is still very limited and there is no evidence that repair is associated with improved outcomes compared with re- placement.313,314 Owing to their natural biocompatibility, the use of cryopreserved or sterilized homografts has been suggested to re- duce the risk of persistent or recurrent infection, especially in the presence of annular abscesses.315,316 It is expert opinion and stand- ard strategy in many institutions that the use of a homograft is to be favoured over valve prostheses, particularly in the presence of root abscess.316,317 However, mechanical prostheses and xenografts have led to similar results in terms of persistent or recurrent infec- tion and survival if associated with complete debridement of annular abscesses.313,318 Homografts or stentless xenografts may be pre- ferred in PVE or in cases where there is extensive aortic root de- struction with aorto-ventricular discontinuity.315,319 The anterior mitral leaflet of the aortic homograft can be effectively used for re- construction of the outflow tract. A monoblock aorto-mitral homo- graft has been suggested as a surgical option for extensive bivalvular IE.320 In experienced hands, the Ross procedure may be used in chil- dren or adolescents to facilitate growth and in young adults for ex- tended durability.321,322 Cardiac transplantation may be considered in extreme cases where repeated operative procedures have failed to eradicate per- sistent or recurrent PVE.323 10.4 Postoperative complications Postoperative patient management should follow the usual recom- mendations after valvular surgery324 but should also take into ac- count the specificities of IE. Postoperative follow-up should be particularly cautious given the in-hospital mortality of patients oper- ated on for acute IE on an emergency or urgent basis, which ranges from 10% to 20% in most series,1 and the increased risk of post- operative complications. Among the most frequent complications are severe coagulopathy requiring treatment with clotting factors, re-exploration of the chest for bleeding or tamponade, acute renal failure requiring haemodialy- sis, stroke, low cardiac output syndrome, pneumonia and atrio- ventricular block following radical resection of an aortic root ab- scess with the need for pacemaker implantation.325 A preoperative electrocardiogram demonstrating left bundle branch block predicts the need for a postoperative permanent pacemaker.23 When a patient does not survive surgery, the cause of death is often multifactorial.325 11. Outcome after discharge: follow-up and long-term prognosis Following in-hospital treatment, the main complications include re- currence of infection, HF, need for valve surgery and death.57,326,327 11.1 Recurrences: relapses and reinfections The actual risk of recurrence among survivors of IE varies between 2% and 6%.57,326 –332 Two main types of recurrence are distinguish- able: relapse and reinfection. Although not systematically differentiated in the literature, the term ‘relapse’ refers to a repeat episode of IE caused by the same microorganism, while ‘reinfection’ describes an infection caused by a different microorganism.38 When the same species is isolated during a subsequent episode of IE, there is often uncertainty as to whether the repeat infection is a relapse of the initial infection or a new infection (reinfection). In these cases, molecular methods including strain-typing techniques should be employed.8,38 When these techniques or the identity of both iso- lates is unavailable, the timing of the second episode of IE may be used to distinguish relapse from reinfection. Thus, although variable, the time between episodes is usually shorter for relapse than for re- infection. Generally speaking, a recurrence caused by the same spe- cies within 6 months following the initial infection represents relapse, whereas later events suggest reinfection.38 For these pur- poses, storage of IE isolates for at least 1 year is recommended.8,38 Factors associated with an increased rate of relapse are listed in Table 24. Relapses are most often due to insufficient duration of ori- ginal treatment, suboptimal choice of initial antibiotics or a persist- ent focus of infection. When the duration of therapy has been insufficient or the choice of antibiotic incorrect, relapse should be treated for a further 4–6 weeks depending on the causative micro- organism and its antibiotic susceptibility (remembering that resist- ance may develop in the meantime). Patients with previous IE are at risk of reinfection,332 and prophy- lactic measures should be very strict. Reinfection is more frequent in IVDAs (especially in the year after the initial episode),332,333 in PVE,334 in patients undergoing chronic dialysis326,332 and in those with multiple risk factors for IE.8 Patients with reinfection are at higher risk of death and need for valve replacement.325,332 Paravalv- ular destruction is associated with a higher rate of recurrence and a higher operative mortality.331 In a large series of surgically managed NVE (358 cases), 21% had paravalvular destruction, and freedom from recurrent PVE at 15 years was 78.9%.331 The type of valve implanted has no effect on the risk of recurrent IE.325,331 Aortic valve and root replacement with a prosthetic Table 24 Factors associated with an increased rate of relapse • Inadequate antibiotic treatment (agent, dose, duration) • Resistant microorganisms,i.e.Brucella spp.,Legionella spp.,Chlamydia spp., Mycoplasma spp., Mycobacterium spp., Bartonella spp., Coxiella Burnetii, fungi • Polymicrobial infection in an IVDA • Empirical antimicrobial therapy for BCNIE • Periannular extension • Prosthetic valve IE • Persistent metastatic foci of infection (abscesses) • Resistance to conventional antibiotic regimens • Positive valve culture • Persistence of fever at the seventh postoperative day • Chronic dialysis BCNIE ¼ blood culture-negative infective endocarditis; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; IVDA ¼ intravenous drug abuser. ESC Guidelines3106 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 33. conduit yields results similar to those for homograft root replacement.335,336 11.2 Short-term follow-up A first episode of IE should not be seen as an ending once the patient has been discharged. Residual severe valve regurgitation may de- compensate left ventricular function, or valve deterioration may progress despite bacteriological cure, usually presenting with acute HF. After completion of treatment, recommendations for surgery follow conventional guidelines.55 As a consequence of increasing rates of surgery during the active phase of infection, the need for late valve surgery is low, ranging from 3% to 8% in recent series.326– 328 Patients should be educated about the signs and symptoms of IE after discharge. They should be aware that recurrence could occur in IE and that new onset of fever, chills or other signs of infection mandate immediate evaluation, including procurement of blood cul- tures before empirical use of antibiotics. To monitor the develop- ment of secondary HF, an initial clinical evaluation and baseline TTE should be performed at the completion of antimicrobial ther- apy and repeated serially, particularly during the first year of follow-up. Clinical follow-up should be done by the Endocarditis Team or by a Heart Valve Clinic specialist.11,337 Regular clinical and echocardio- graphic follow-up should be performed during the first year follow- ing completion of treatment.8,12 This Task Force also recommends to take blood samples (i.e. white cell count, CRP, etc.), and blood cultures systematically at the initial visit, and otherwise if there is clinical suspicion. Good oral health maintenance, preventive dentistry and advice about skin hygiene, including tattoos and skin piercing, are manda- tory. Deficiencies in dental surveillance contribute to the continu- ous gradual increase in the incidence of IE.30,337 This increase underlines the need for repeating the principles of IE prevention at each follow-up visit. 11.3 Long-term prognosis In recent series, the crude long-term survival rates after the comple- tion of treatment were estimated to be 80–90% at 1 year, 70–80% at 2 years and 60–70% at 5 years.57,326 – 332 The main predictors of long-term mortality are older age, co-morbidities, recurrences and HF, especially when cardiac surgery cannot be performed.57,327,330 Compared with an age- and sex-matched general population, pa- tients surviving a first episode of IE have a significantly worse sur- vival.57 This excess mortality is especially high within the first few years after hospital discharge and can be explained by late complica- tions such as HF, higher risk of recurrences and higher patient vul- nerability.57,329 In fact, most recurrences and late cardiac surgeries occurred during this period of time.57,328,329 In summary, recurrences are rare following IE and may be asso- ciated with inadequate initial antibiotic therapy, resistant micro- organisms, persistent focus of infection, i.v. drug abuse and chronic dialysis. Patients with IE must be informed of the risk of recurrence and educated about how to diagnose and prevent a new episode of IE. The need for late valve surgery is low. 12. Management of specific situations 12.1 Prosthetic valve endocarditis PVE is the most severe form of IE and occurs in 1–6% of patients with valve prostheses,338 with an incidence of 0.3–1.2% per patient- year.216,233,339,340 PVE accounts for 10–30% of all cases of IE341 and affects mechanical and bioprosthetic valves equally. PVE was ob- served in 16% of cases of IE in a French survey,122 in 26% of cases in the Euro Heart Survey54 and in 20% of 2670 patients with definite IE in the ICE Prospective Cohort Study.340 PVE is still associated with difficulties in diagnosis, determination of the optimal therapeut- ic strategy and poor prognosis. 12.1.1 Definition and pathophysiology Early PVE is defined as IE occurring within 1 year of surgery and late PVE as IE occurring beyond 1 year, because of significant differences be- tween the microbiological profiles observed before and after this time point.3,342 However, this is an artificial distinction. What is important is not the time from the valve replacement procedure to the onset of IE, but whether IE is acquired perioperatively and which microorganism is involved. A recent large, prospective, multicentre, international registry reported that 37% of PVE cases were associated with nosocomial infec- tion or non-nosocomial healthcare-associated infections in outpatients with extensive healthcare contact.340 The pathogenesis of PVE differs according to both the type of contamination and the type of prosthetic valve. In cases with peri- operative contamination, the infection usually involves the junction between the sewing ring and the annulus, leading to perivalvular ab- scess, dehiscence, pseudo-aneurysms and fistulae.339,343,344 In late PVE, additional mechanisms may exist. For example, in late biopros- thetic PVE, infection is frequently located on the leaflets of the pros- thesis, leading to vegetations, cusp rupture and perforation. PVE has recently been reported after transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valve implantation, which should be managed in the same manner as other prosthetic valves.345,346 The risk of prosthetic valve im- plantation endocarditis increases with the use of orotracheal intub- ation and a self-expandable valve system. The consequence of PVE is usually new prosthetic regurgitation. Less frequently, large vegetations may cause prosthetic valve obstruction, which can be diagnosed by TOE and sometimes by TTE or fluoroscopy. 12.1.2 Diagnosis Diagnosis is more difficult in PVE than in NVE. Clinical presentation is frequently atypical, particularly in the early postoperative period, in which fever and inflammatory syndromes are common in the ab- sence of IE. However, persistent fever should trigger the suspicion of PVE. As in NVE, diagnosis of PVE is based mainly on the results of echocardiography and blood cultures. However, both are more fre- quently negative in PVE.100 Although TOE is mandatory in suspected PVE (Figure 3), its diagnostic value is lower than in NVE. A negative echocardiogram is frequently observed in PVE2 and does not rule out the diagnosis, but identification of a new periprosthetic leak is a major criterion, in which case an additional imaging modality could be considered (such as CT or nuclear imaging). ESC Guidelines 3107 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 34. In PVE, staphylococcal and fungal infections are more frequent and streptococcal infection less frequent than in NVE. Staphylo- cocci, fungi and Gram-negative bacilli are the main causes of early PVE, while the microbiology of late PVE mirrors that of NVE, with staphylococci, oral streptococci, S. bovis and enterococci being the most frequent organisms, more likely due to community-acquired infections. Staphyloccoci and enteroccoci are the most common agents in prosthetic valve implantation endocarditis.345,346 The Duke criteria have been shown to be helpful for the diagnosis of NVE, with a sensitivity of 70–80%,100,347 but are less useful in PVE because of their lower sensitivity in this setting.348,349 Recently, nuclear techniques, particularly 18 F-FDG PET/CT, have been shown to be use- ful for the diagnosis of PVE.93 The addition of abnormal FDG uptake as a novel major criterion for PVE has thus been pointed out. An algo- rithm for evaluation of patients with suspected PVE, including echocar- diography and PET/CT has been suggested (see Figure 3).93 12.1.3 Prognosis and treatment A very high in-hospital mortality rate of 20–40% has been reported in PVE.338,341 As in NVE, prognostic assessment is of crucial im- portance in PVE, as it allows identification of high-risk subgroups of patients in whom an aggressive strategy may be necessary. Several factors have been associated with poor prognosis in PVE,161,216,350–353 including older age, diabetes mellitus, healthcare- associated infections, staphylococcal or fungal infection, early PVE, HF, stroke and intracardiac abscess. Among these, complicated PVE and staphylococcal infection are the most powerful markers. These patients need aggressive management, consisting of antibiotic therapy and early radical surgery. Antimicrobial therapy for PVE is similar to that for NVE. An ex- ception is S. aureus PVE, which requires a more prolonged (≥6 weeks) antibiotic regimen (particularly in association with aminogly- cosides) and frequent use of rifampin. Surgery for PVE follows the general principles outlined for NVE. Radical debridement in these cases means removal of all infected foreign material, including the original prosthesis, and any calcium remaining from previous surgery. Homografts, stentless xenografts or autografts may be considered in aortic PVE, and homograft or xenograft root replacement is indicated for any abnormality of the aortic root that distorts the aortic sinuses. Alternatively, a valved Dacron conduit336 can be used. The best therapeutic option in PVE is still debated.221,354–359 Al- though surgery is generally considered the best option when PVE causes severe prosthetic dysfunction or HF,220 it was performed in only 50% of patients with PVE in the Euro Heart Survey,54 a similar rate as for patients with NVE. Other groups have reported similar data.221,340 Early surgery was associated with lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality in a large cohort of 4166 patients including both na- tive and prosthetic valve IE complicated by HF.216 Conversely, after adjustment for differences in clinical characteristics and survival bias, early valve replacement was not associated with lower mortality compared with medical therapy in a large international cohort.37 However, in these series, surgery was beneficial in the subgroup of patients with the greatest need for surgery, including valve regurgita- tion, vegetation and dehiscence or paravalvular abscess/fistula.37 Therefore a surgical strategy is recommended for PVE in high-risk subgroups identified by prognostic assessment, i.e. PVE complicated by HF, severe prosthetic dysfunction, abscess or persistent fever (Table 22). Emergency surgery is indicated only in cases with refrac- tory congestive HF leading to pulmonary oedema or shock, as in NVE. Conversely, patients with uncomplicated non-staphylococcal and non-fungal late PVE can be managed conservatively.350,357,358 However, patients who are initially treated medically require close follow-up because of the risk of late events. In summary, PVE represents 20% of all cases of IE, with an increas- ing incidence. The diagnosis of PVE is more difficult than for NVE. Complicated PVE and staphylococcal PVE are associated with a worse prognosis if treated without surgery. These forms of PVE must be managed aggressively. Patients with uncomplicated, non- staphylococcal late PVE can be managed conservatively with close follow-up. 12.2 Infective endocarditis affecting cardiac implantable electronic devices 12.2.1 Introduction Infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is a severe disease associated with high mortality.360 The increased rates of CIED implantation coupled with increased implantation in older patients with more co-morbidities have set the stage for higher rates of CIED infection and the increasing frequency of IE in these patients.361 The reported incidence of permanent pacemaker infection varies widely among studies.362,363 A population-based study found an inci- dence of CIED infection of 1.9 per 1000 device-years and a higher probability of infection after implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with permanent pacemakers.364 Both diagnosis and thera- peutic strategy are particularly difficult in these patients.365 12.2.2 Definitions of cardiac device infections A distinction should be made between local device infection and cardiac device-related IE (CDRIE). Local device infection is defined as an infection limited to the pocket of the cardiac device and is clin- ically suspected in the presence of local signs of inflammation at the generator pocket, including erythema, warmth, fluctuance, wound dehiscence, erosion, tenderness or purulent drainage.366 CDRIE is defined as an infection extending to the electrode leads, cardiac valve leaflets or endocardial surface. However, differentiating local device infection and CDRIE is frequently difficult. In one study,367 culture of intravascular lead segments was positive in 72% of 50 pa- tients with manifestations strictly limited to the implantation site. However, the possibility of intraoperative contamination of the lead tip cannot be excluded in these patients. 12.2.3 Pathophysiology The pocket may become infected at the time of implantation, during subsequent surgical manipulation of the pocket or if the generator or subcutaneous electrodes erode through the skin. Pocket infec- tion may track along the intravascular portion of the electrode to involve the intracardiac portion of the pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Alternatively, the pocket or intracardiac portion of the electrode may become infected as a result of haema- togenous seeding during a bacteraemia secondary to a distant in- fected focus. The consequence may be formation of vegetations, which can be found anywhere from the insertion vein to the super- ior vena cava, on the lead or on the tricuspid valve, as well as on the ESC Guidelines3108 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 35. right atrial and ventricular endocardium. Septic pulmonary embol- ism is a very frequent complication of CDRIE. 12.2.4 Risk factors Several factors have been associated with CIED infections.366,367 Patient factors include renal failure, corticosteroid use, congestive HF, haema- toma formation, diabetes mellitus and anticoagulation use.368–370 In addition, procedural characteristics may also play an important role in the development of CIED infection. The factors associated with an increased risk of infection include the type of intervention,371,372 device revisions, the site of intervention, the amount of indwelling hardware, the use of pre-procedural temporary pacing, failure to ad- minister perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis,373 fever within the 24 h before implantation and operator experience.374 12.2.5 Microbiology Staphylococci, and especially CoNS, account for 60–80% of cases in most reported series.375,376 A variety of CoNS species have been described.366,377 Methicillin resistance among staphylococci varies among studies,376,378 but a low frequency of methicillin-resistant CoNS has been reported among individuals with no healthcare contact, whereas a high rate of methicillin resistance in CoNS is associated with a healthcare environment source.379 Polymicro- bial infection sometimes involves more than one species of CoNS.376,380,381 Corynebacterium spp., Propionibacterium acnes, Gram-negative bacilli and Candida spp. are rarely identified as patho- gens in CIED infection.366,376,377 12.2.6 Diagnosis Clinical presentation is frequently misleading, with predominant re- spiratory and rheumatological symptoms as well as local signs of in- fection.382 CDRIE must be suspected in the presence of unexplained fever in a patient with a CIED. Fever is frequently blunted, particu- larly in elderly patients. As in other forms of IE, echocardiography and blood cultures are the cornerstones of diagnosis. S. aureus bac- teraemia might be the sole manifestation of device infection. Echocardiography plays a key role in CDRIE and is helpful for the diagnosis of both lead vegetations and tricuspid involvement, quanti- fication of tricuspid regurgitation, sizing of vegetations and follow-up after lead extraction. Several prognostic features may be better de- fined on TTE than on TOE, such as pericardial effusion, ventricular dysfunction and pulmonary vascular pressure estimations. TOE has superior sensitivity and specificity to TTE for diagnosis of lead-related endocarditis.381–385 TOE allows visualization of the lead in atypical lo- cations, such as the proximal superior vena cava, and of regions that are difficult to visualize by TTE. In addition, the sensitivity of TOE for left-sided involvement and for perivalvular extension of infection is superior to that of TTE. Considering their complementary role, it is recommended to perform both investigations in suspected CDRIE. In the presence of infective material along the lead course not providing typical vegetations of measurable size, both TTE and TOE may be falsely negative in CDRIE. Intracardiac echocardiog- raphy was recently found to be feasible and effective in cardiac de- vice patients386 and to have a superior sensitivity for the detection of vegetations in cardiac devices.386 – 388 A normal echographic examination does not rule out CDRIE. In difficult cases, other modalities such as radiolabelled leucocyte scintigraphy389 and 18 F-FDG PET/CT scanning108,390 have been de- scribed as additive tools in the diagnosis of CDRIE and related com- plications, including pulmonary septic embolism. The Duke criteria are difficult to apply in these patients because of lower sensitivity.347 Modifications of the Duke criteria have been proposed,382,391 including local signs of infection and pulmonary embolism as major criteria.382 12.2.7 Treatment CDRIE must be treated by prolonged antibiotic therapy associated with complete hardware removal.360,391 12.2.8 Antimicrobial therapy Antimicrobial therapy for CDRIE should be individualized and based on culture and susceptibility results if possible (see section 7). Be- cause most CDRIE infections are secondary to staphylococcal species and, of those, up to 50% are methicillin-resistant,376,392 vancomycin should be administered initially as empirical antibiotic coverage until microbiological results are known. Daptomycin, approved for right- side IE and bacteraemia attributable to S. aureus,168 is a promising mol- ecule to treat CIED infection.393–395 Before hardware removal, but after blood cultures, i.v. antibiotics should be initiated. There are no clinical trial data to define the optimal duration of antimicrobial ther- apy. The duration of therapy should be 4–6 weeks in most cases.362 At least 2 weeks of parenteral therapy is recommended after extrac- tion of an infected device for patients with bloodstream infection. Patients with sustained (.24 h) positive blood cultures despite CIED removal and appropriate antimicrobial therapy should receive parenteral therapy for at least 4 weeks.362,366 12.2.9 Complete hardware removal (device and lead extraction) In the case of definite CDRIE, medical therapy alone has been asso- ciated with high mortality and risk of recurrence.360,363,391 For this reason, CIED removal is recommended in all cases of proven CDRIE and should also be considered when CDRIE is only suspected in the case of occult infection without any apparent source other than the device.396 Complete removal of the system is the recommended treatment for patients with established CDRIE.363,391,396 Considering the in- herent risk of an open surgical procedure,380 transvenous lead ex- traction has become the preferred method. It is essential to remove all hardware to avoid the recurrence of infection.368,397 In experienced centres, procedural mortality rates have been shown to be between 0.1% and 0.6%.396,398 Long-term mortality varies among subgroups, but rates are higher in systemic infections.399 Transvenous extractions are not without risk, and procedural com- plexity may vary significantly according to lead type and features. Typically ICD leads are more difficult to remove than coronary sinus leads, which are usually removed by simple manual traction.400 – 402 Transvenous lead extraction should be performed only in centres committed to a procedural volume allowing the maintenance of skills of adequately trained teams and able to provide immediate car- diothoracic surgery backup in the event of emergency thoracotomy or sternotomy.396,403 Pulmonary embolism as a result of vegetation displacement dur- ing extraction occurs frequently, particularly when vegetations are ESC Guidelines 3109 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 36. large.367,404 However, these episodes are frequently asymptomatic, and percutaneous extraction remains the recommended method even in cases of large vegetations,360,391,404 as overall risks are even higher with surgical extraction.367,380 Some authors recommend surgery in patients with very large ve- getations.405 Until additional data are available, decisions regarding percutaneous versus surgical removal of leads with vegetations .2 cm in diameter should be individualized. Other indications for a surgical approach to lead removal include patients who need a contemporary valve replacement or repair for IE or patients who have significant retained hardware after attempts at percutaneous removal. However, mortality associated with surgi- cal removal is high in these frequently elderly patients with asso- ciated co-morbidities.380 12.2.10 Reimplantation The first step before reimplantation is a re-evaluation of the indica- tion for CIED implantation.377,403 In a significant number of cases, reimplantation is not necessary.366,398 The device should be reim- planted on the contralateral side. There is no clear recommendation concerning the optimal timing of reimplantation. Factors such as persistent bacteraemia, persistent vegetation and pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator dependency should be con- sidered and the decision adapted to the individual patient. Immedi- ate reimplantation should be avoided, owing to the risk of new infection.366,377,398,403 Blood cultures should be negative for at least 72 h before placement of a new device. In cases of evidence of remnant valvular infection, implantation should be delayed for at least 14 days.366,406 Temporary pacing is a risk factor for subsequent cardiac device infection367 and should be avoided if possible. In pacing-dependent patients, temporary use of active fixation leads connected to exter- nal devices is described as a ‘bridge’,407 permitting earlier mobiliza- tion with a reduced risk of pacing-related adverse events.408 – 410 12.2.11 Prophylaxis Although there are no large controlled studies on this topic, anti- biotic prophylaxis is recommended before implantation.367,368,373 A first-generation cephalosporin, such as cefazolin (6 g/day for 24–36 h after the intervention), is usually used as prophylaxis and should be parenterally administered 1 h before the procedure. Vancomycin, teicoplanin and daptomicin may be considered in- stead of cefazolin in centres where oxacillin resistance among staphylococci is high, in high-risk patients or in patients with contra- indications to cephalosporins. They should always be started before the procedure according to the drug pharmacokinetics. In summary, CDRIE is one of the most difficult forms of IE to diag- nose and must be suspected in the presence of frequently mislead- ing symptoms, particularly in elderly patients. Prognosis is poor, probably because of its frequent occurrence in elderly patients with associated co-morbidities. In the majority of patients, CDRIE must be treated by prolonged antibiotic therapy and device re- moval. Table 25 summarizes the main features concerning diag- nosis, treatment and prevention of CDRIE. Table 25 Cardiac device-related infective endocarditis: diagnosis, treatment and prevention Recommendations Classa Levelb Ref.c A. Diagnosis 1. Three or more sets of blood cultures are recommended before prompt initiation of antimicrobial therapy for CIED infection I C 2. Lead-tip culture is indicated when the CIED is explanted I C 3. TOE is recommended in patients with suspected CDRIE with positive or negative blood cultures, independent of the results of TTE, to evaluate lead-related endocarditis and heart valve infection I C 4. Intracardiac echocardiography may be considered in patients with suspected CDRIE, positive blood cultures and negative TTE and TOE results IIb C 5. Radiolabelled leucocyte scintigraphy and 18 F-FDG PET/CT scanning may be considered additive tools in patients with suspected CDRIE, positive blood cultures and negative echocardiography IIb C B. Principles of treatment 1. Prolonged (i.e. before and after extraction) antibiotic therapy and complete hardware (device and leads) removal are recommended in definite CDRIE, as well as in presumably isolated pocket infection I C 2. Complete hardware removal should be considered on the basis of occult infection without another apparent source of infection IIa C 3. In patients with NVE or PVE and an intracardiac device with no evidence of associated device infection, complete hardware extraction may be considered IIb C C. Mode of device removal 1. Percutaneous extraction is recommended in most patients with CDRIE, even those with vegetations .10 mm I B 382, 391, 405 Continued ESC Guidelines3110 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 37. 12.3 Infective endocarditis in the intensive care unit Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) is frequently a part of the normal patient pathway following surgery for IE. In addition, patients with IE may be admitted to the ICU due to haemodynamic instability related to severe sepsis, overt HF and/or severe valvular pathology or organ failure from IE-related complications.411,412 The incidence of nosocomial infection is increasing and patients may develop IE as a re- sult of healthcare-associated infection acquired during hospital or in- tensive care admission. Finally, the diagnosis of IE can be challenging, being made only post-mortem in a number of patients.413 Despite ad- vances in diagnosis and treatment, mortality remains particularly high in critically ill patients, ranging from 29% to 84%.411,414,415 Estimation of the number of patients requiring ICU admission for IE is challenging. In a retrospective, multicentre, observational study of 4106 patients admitted to four medical ICUs, IE was identified in 0.8% of admissions.416 Reasons for admission to the ICU were con- gestive cardiac failure (64%), septic shock (21%), neurological de- terioration (15%) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (9%).416 Critical care morbidity is high, with up to 79% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 73% inotropic support and 39% developing renal failure. 12.3.1 Organisms Limited data are available regarding causative organisms for IE in the ICU. Case series have revealed Staphylococci spp. to be the most common causative agent, accounting for 74% of all nosocomial IE cases. Streptococci are the second most common causative organ- isms. Fungal IE is an increasing problem in the ICU, with Candida IE occurring significantly more often in ICU than non-ICU hospitalized patients.417 There should be a high index of suspicion for fungal IE in the ICU setting, in particular where there is failure to respond to empirical antimicrobial therapy. 12.3.2 Diagnosis The diagnostic criteria for IE in the ICU are identical to those for the non-ICU patient population. However, clinical manifestations may be atypical and the classic features may be masked by concomitant path- ology and critical care interventions. Thus pyrexia may be attributed to co-existing hospital-acquired infections, neurological manifesta- tions masked by the confounding factors of sedation, ICU-related de- lirium, concomitant multiple pathologies and acute kidney injury ascribed to co-existing pathologies. Echocardiography can be chal- lenging in the intensive care setting, with a reduced sensitivity of TTE for the diagnosis of IE. There should be a relatively low thresh- old for TOE in critically ill patients with S. aureus catheter-related bloodstream infection because of its high propensity to cause IE, and also, if negative, this may allow short antibiotic treatment. 12.3.3 Management Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock should be managed ac- cording to protocolised international guidelines.418 Antimicrobial management and indications for surgery in patients with IE are de- scribed in sections 7 and 10, respectively. However, emergency/sal- vage status accounts for the highest mortality rates in registry data for patients operated on for IE,299 and patients with SOFA scores .15 on the day of surgery have extremely poor outcomes.125 De- cision making in this most critically ill patient population where indi- cations and contraindications for cardiac surgery co-exist is challenging and should be undertaken in the context of the multi- professional, multidisciplinary Endocarditis Team environment. 12.4 Right-sided infective endocarditis Right-sided IE accounts for 5–10% of IE cases.419,420 Although it may occur in patients with a pacemaker, ICD, central venous catheter or CHD, this situation is most frequently observed in IVDAs, especially in patients with concomitant human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) seropositivity or in immunosuppressed patients.420 – 422 S. aureus is the predominant organism (60–90% of cases),419,423 with methicil- lin-resistant strains becoming more prevalent.414 The frequency of polymicrobial infections is also rising.424 The tricuspid valve is most Table 25 Continued Recommendations Classa Levelb Ref.c 2. Surgical extraction should be considered if percutaneous extraction is incomplete or impossible or when there is associated severe destructive tricuspid IE IIa C 3. Surgical extraction may be considered in patients with large vegetations (.20 mm) IIb C D. Reimplantation 1. After device extraction, reassessment of the need for reimplantation is recommended I C 2. When indicated, definite reimplantation should be postponed if possible, to allow a few days or weeks of antibiotic therapy IIa C 3. A ‘temporary’ ipsilateral active fixation strategy may be considered in pacemaker-dependent patients requiring appropriate antibiotic treatment before reimplantation IIb C 4. Temporary pacing is not routinely recommended III C E. Prophylaxis 1. Routine antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before device implantation I B 367, 368, 373 2. Potential sources of sepsis should be eliminated ≥2 weeks before implantation of an intravascular/ cardiac foreign material, except in urgent procedures IIa C CDRIE ¼ cardiac device-related infective endocarditis; CIED ¼ cardiac implantable electronic device; FDG ¼ fluorodeoxyglucose; IE ¼ infective endocarditis; NVE ¼ native valve endocarditis; PET ¼ positron emission tomography; PVE ¼ prosthetic valve endocarditis; TOE ¼ transoesophageal echocardiography; TTE ¼ transthoracic echocardiography. a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. c Reference(s) supporting recommendations. ESC Guidelines 3111 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 38. frequently affected, but other valves—including left-sided—may also become infected.425 In-hospital mortality is approximately 7%.426–429 12.4.1 Diagnosis and complications The usual manifestations of right-sided IE are persistent fever, bacter- aemia and multiple septic pulmonary emboli, which may manifest as chest pain, cough or haemoptysis. When systemic emboli occur, paradoxical embolism or associated left-sided IE should be consid- ered. Isolated right HF is rare, but can be caused by pulmonary hyper- tension or severe right-sided valvular regurgitation or obstruction.425 Pulmonary hypertension can be secondary to left-sided IE. TTE usually allows assessment of tricuspid involvement because of the anterior location of this valve and usual large vegeta- tions.430,431 Eustachian and pulmonary valves should always be as- sessed. TOE is more sensitive in the detection of pulmonary vegetations432 and associated left-sided involvement. 12.4.2 Prognosis and treatment Vegetation length .20 mm and fungal aetiology were the main pre- dictors of death in a large retrospective cohort of right-sided IE in IVDAs.433 In HIV-infected patients, a CD4 count ,200 cells/mL has a high prognostic value.420,421 12.4.2.1 Antimicrobial therapy The choice of empiric antimicrobial therapy depends on the sus- pected microorganism, type of drug and solvent used by the addict and the infection location.424 In any case, S. aureus must always be covered. Initial treatment includes penicillinase-resistant penicillins, vancomycin or daptomycin, depending on the local prevalence of MRSA,424 in combination with gentamicin. If the patient is a pentazo- cine addict, an antipseudomonas agent should be added.434 If an IVDA uses brown heroin dissolved in lemon juice, Candida spp. (not Candida albicans) should be considered and antifungal treat- ment added.435 Once the causative organisms have been isolated, therapy has to be adjusted. Consistent data show that 2-week treatment may be sufficient and that the addition of an aminoglycoside may be unnecessary.436 Two-week treatment with oxacillin (or cloxacillin) without gentami- cin is effective for most patients with isolated tricuspid IE if all the following criteria are fulfilled: † MSSA, † Good response to treatment, † Absence of metastatic sites of infection or empyema, † Absence of cardiac and extracardiac complications, † Absence of associated prosthetic valve or left-sided valve infection, † ,20 mm vegetation, and † Absence of severe immunosuppression (,200 CD4 cells/mL) with or without acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Because of limited bactericidal activity, poor penetration into vege- tations and increased drug clearance in IVDAs, glycopeptides (vancomycin) should not be used in a 2-week treatment. The stand- ard 4–6-week regimen must be used in the following situations: † Slow clinical or microbiological response (. 96 h) to antibiotic therapy;426 † Right-sided IE complicated by right HF, vegetations .20 mm, acute respiratory failure, septic metastatic foci outside the lungs (including empyema) or extracardiac complications, e.g. acute re- nal failure;426 † Therapy with antibiotics other than penicillinase-resistant penicillins;437 † IVDA with severe immunosuppression (CD4 count ,200 cells/ mL) with or without AIDS;438 or † Associated left-sided IE. Alternatively, when conventional i.v. route therapy is not possible, right-sided S. aureus IE in IVDAs may also be treated with oral cipro- floxacin [750 mg bis in die (b.i.d.)] plus rifampicin (300 mg b.i.d.) pro- vided that the strain is fully susceptible to both drugs, the case is uncomplicated and patient adherence is monitored carefully.439 One randomized controlled study has demonstrated the non- inferiority of daptomycin compared with standard therapy in the treatment of S. aureus infections, including right-sided IE.168 When using daptomycin, most authors recommend using high doses (10 mg/kg/24 h) and combining it with cloxacillin or fosfomycin to avoid the development of resistance to this drug.174 Glycopeptides (e.g. vancomycin) or daptomycin are the agents of choice for MRSA infections. Vancomycin may have a lower efficacy in infections caused by MRSA strains with a vancomycin MIC .1 mg/ mL.171,172,440 In these cases, daptomycin would be the drug of choice. For organisms other than S. aureus, therapy in IVDAs does not differ from that in non-IVDAs. 12.4.2.2 Surgery Given the high recurrence rate of IE due to continued drug abuse, surgery should generally be avoided in IVDAs with right- Table 26 Indications for surgical treatment of right-sided infective endocarditis Recommendation Classa Levelb Surgical treatment should be considered in the following scenarios: † Microorganisms difficult to eradicate (e.g. persistent fungi) or bacteraemia for . 7 days (e.g. S. aureus, P. aeruginosa) despite adequate antimicrobial therapy or † Persistent tricuspid valve vegetations . 20 mm after recurrent pulmonary emboli with or without concomitant right heart failure or † Right HF secondary to severe tricuspid regurgitation with poor response to diuretic therapy IIa C HF ¼ heart failure. a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. ESC Guidelines3112 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 39. sided native IE, but it has to be considered in the following situations (Table 26): † Right HF secondary to severe tricuspid regurgitation with poor response to diuretic therapy; † IE caused by organisms that are difficult to eradicate (e.g. persist- ent fungi) or bacteraemia for at least 7 days (e.g. S. aureus, Pseudo- monas aeruginosa) despite adequate antimicrobial therapy;441 and † Tricuspid valve vegetations .20 mm that persist after recurrent pulmonary emboli with or without concomitant right HF.426,433 Cardiac surgery in HIV-infected IVDAs with IE does not worsen the prognosis of either the IE or the HIV. Recent nationwide data have shown that the three most frequent surgical strategies for tricuspid valve IE are valvectomy, valve repair and valve replacement.429 Tricuspid valve replacement accounted for the majority of cases, with most receiving a bioprosthetic valve. Some authors prefer valve repair (avoiding artificial material when- ever possible) over valve replacement, but the former did not im- prove outcomes over valve replacement or valvectomy.429 Valvectomy without prosthetic replacement can be done in ex- treme cases, but may be associated with severe postoperative right HF, particularly in patients with pulmonary hypertension. In these cases, the valve can be subsequently replaced once infection has been cured and drug use discontinued. Pulmonary valve replace- ment should be avoided, but if judged necessary, use of a pulmonary homograft (or, if unavailable, a xenograft valve) is preferred. In summary, right-sided IE is primarily a disease that affects IVDAs and patients with CHD. Diagnostic features include respiratory symptoms and fever. S. aureus is responsible for most cases. TTE is of major value in these patients. Despite relatively low in- hospital mortality, right-sided IE has a high risk of recurrence in IVDAs and surgery is recommended only for intractable symp- toms, failure of medical therapy, recurrent septic emboli to the lungs or paradoxical emboli. 12.5 Infective endocarditis in congenital heart disease The population of children and adults with CHD is expanding, and this is the major substrate for IE in younger patients. However, our knowledge of IE in this setting is limited since systematic studies are few and often retrospective and selection bias associated with stud- ies from highly specialized centres hampers universal application. The reported incidence of IE in CHD is 15–140 times higher than that in the general population (the highest estimate originating from a highly specialized unit).442,443 The incidence is lower in children (0.04% per year) than in adults with CHD (0.1% per year).444,445 The reported proportion of CHD in patients with IE varies (prob- ably due to selection bias) by between 2% and 60%,446– 450 with a consistent minor male dominance.443,451,452 Some simple lesions, such as secundum atrial septal defect and pulmonary valve disease, carry a low risk of IE, while others, such as bicuspid aortic valve, carry higher risk. However, CHD often con- sists of multiple cardiac lesions, each contributing to the total risk of IE. For example, the incidence of IE is considerably higher in patients with a ventricular septal defect when there is associated aortic regurgitation.453 The distribution of causative organisms does not differ from the pattern found in acquired heart disease, with streptococci and staphylococci being the most common strains.443,451,452 As in other groups, the diagnosis of IE is often made too late, high- lighting the need to consider the diagnosis of IE in any patient with CHD presenting with ongoing fever or other signs of ongoing infec- tion. Blood cultures should be taken before starting antibiotic treat- ment. The principal symptoms, complications and basis for diagnosis do not differ from IE in general. However, right-sided IE is more fre- quent in CHD than in acquired cardiac disease. The superiority of TOE over TTE has not been systematically studied in this setting. Nevertheless, complex anatomy and the presence of artificial mater- ial may reduce the rate of detection of vegetations and other features of IE, thus favouring the addition of TOE, particularly in the adult group.443 However, a negative study does not exclude the diagnosis. Care of CHD patients with IE, from diagnosis to treatment, is best provided by specialized CHD centres with expertise in imaging, sur- gery and intensive care. Cardiac surgery is appropriate when med- ical therapy fails, when serious haemodynamic complications arise and when there is a high risk of devastating septic embolism. IE in CHD carries a mortality rate of 4–10%.443,451,452,454 This bet- ter prognosis compared with acquired heart disease may reflect the higher proportion of right-heart IE or the better care in CHD centres. Primary prevention is vital.455 The importance of good oral, dental and skin hygiene has already been emphasized, and antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated in high-risk groups as defined in section 3. However, there is also an educational problem, especially in patients not followed in specialist CHD centres, and awareness of the risk of IE and the need for preventive measures are not satisfac- torily highlighted in the population with CHD.456 Cosmetic tattoo- ing and piercing, at least involving the tongue and mucous membranes, should be discouraged in this group. Surgical repair of CHD often reduces the risk of IE, provided there is no residual lesion.447,457 However, in other cases when arti- ficial valve substitutes are implanted, the procedure may increase the overall risk of IE. There are no scientific data justifying cardiac surgery or percutaneous interventions (e.g. closure of a patent duc- tus arteriosus) with the sole purpose of eliminating the risk of IE.458 Cardiac repair as a secondary preventive measure to reduce the risk of recurrent IE has been described but not systematically studied. In summary, IE in CHD is rare and more frequently affects the right heart. Care of CHD patients with IE, from diagnosis to treatment, is best provided by specialist CHD centres with expertise in imaging, surgery and intensive care. This applies to most patients with CHD. Complex anatomy makes echocardiographic assessment difficult. However, the diagnosis should be considered in all CHD patients with ongoing infection or fever. Prognosis is better than in other forms of IE, with a mortality rate of <10%. Preventive measures and patient education are of particular importance in this population. 12.6 Infective endocarditis during pregnancy A challenge for the physician during pregnancy in the cardiac patient is the changing cardiovascular physiology, which can mimic cardiac dis- ease and confuse the clinical picture.459,460 The incidence of IE during pregnancy has been reported to be 0.006%.196 The incidence of IE in patients with cardiac disease is 0–1.2% and is higher in women with a mechanical prosthetic valve.461–464 Therefore IE in pregnancy is ex- tremely rare and is either a complication of a pre-existing cardiac lesion or the result of i.v. drug abuse. Maternal mortality approaches 33%, with most deaths relating to HF or an embolic event, while foetal ESC Guidelines 3113 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 40. mortality is reported to be about 29%.196 Close attention should be paid to any pregnant woman with unexplained fever and a cardiac murmur. Rapid detection of IE and appropriate treatment is important in redu- cing the risk of both maternal and foetal mortality.196 Despite the high foetal mortality, urgent surgery should be performed during pregnancy in women who present with HF due to acute regurgitation. 12.7 Antithrombotic therapy in infective endocarditis Indications for anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy are the same in IE patients as in other patients, and evidence does not support the initiation of medications interfering with the coagulation system as adjunctive therapy for IE.258 Thrombolytic therapy is generally con- traindicated and has sometimes resulted in severe intracranial haem- orrhage,465 but thrombectomy could be an alternative in selected patients with ischaemic stroke related to IE (see section 9.1). The risk of intracranial haemorrhage may be increased in patients already on oral anticoagulants when IE is diagnosed, especially in pa- tients with S. aureus PVE.113,466 On the other hand, ongoing oral anticoagulants during IE development may diminish early embolic tendencies.467 The recommendations for management of anticoagulant therapy in IE patients are based on a low level of evidence, and decisions should be made on an individual basis by the Endocarditis Team. The role of bridging therapy with unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin has not been studied in patients with IE, but may have reasonable ad- vantages in special situations (i.e. in unstable patients) before surgical decisions are made or to avoid drug interactions. Evidence does not support initiation of antiplatelet therapy in pa- tients diagnosed with IE,258 despite promising results in experimen- tal studies.468 Some cohort studies indicate a possible reduction in the rate of embolic complications257 or IE development in sub- groups of patients already on antiplatelet therapy,469 but the data are contradictory.470,471 12.8 Non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis and endocarditis associated with cancers 12.8.1 Non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis Non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis (NBTE) (i.e. marantic endo- carditis, Libman–Sacks endocarditis or verrucous endocarditis) is characterized by the presence of sterile vegetations consisting of fi- brin and platelet aggregates on cardiac valves. These vegetations are associated with neither bacteraemia nor with destructive changes of the underlying valve.472 It is also quite relevant to differentiate true NBTE versus patients with negative blood cultures due to previous antibiotic therapy.473 NBTE is a condition associated with numerous diseases such as cancer, connective tissue disorders (i.e. systemic lupus erythemato- sus patients possessing antiphospholipid antibodies, called Libman– Sacks endocarditis), autoimmune disorders, hypercoagulable states, septicaemia, severe burns or chronic diseases such as tuberculosis, uraemia or AIDS. It is a potentially life-threatening source of thromboembolism, its main clinical manifestation. It is essential to differentiate NBTE from IE. The same initial diag- nostic workup used for IE is recommended. The diagnosis of NBTE is difficult and relies on strong clinical suspicion in the context of a disease process known to be associated with NBTE, the presence of a heart murmur, the presence of vegetations not responding to anti- biotic treatment and evidence of multiple systemic emboli.474 The presence of a new murmur or a change in a pre-existing mur- mur, although infrequent, in the setting of a predisposing disease should alert the clinician to consider NBTE. Valvular vegetations in NBTE are usually small, broad based and irregularly shaped. They have little inflammatory reaction at the site of attachment, which make them more friable and detachable. Fol- lowing embolization, small remnants on affected valves (≤3 mm) may result in false-negative echocardiography results. TOE should be ordered when there is a high suspicion of NTBE. Left-sided (mi- tral more than aortic) and bilateral vegetations are more consistent with NTBE than with IE.475 When an early TOE examination is per- formed, the prognosis of NTBE is improved.476 Comprehensive haematological and coagulation studies should be performed to search for a potential cause. Multiple blood cultures should be undertaken to rule out IE, although negative blood cultures Table 27 Recommendations for the use of antithrombotic therapy Recommendations Classa Levelb Ref.c Interruption of antiplatelet therapy is recommended in the presence of major bleeding I B 257 In intracranial haemorrhage, interruption of all anticoagulation is recommended I C In ischaemic stroke without haemorrhage, replacement of oral anticoagulant (anti-vitamin K) therapy by unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin for 1–2 weeks should be considered under close monitoringd IIa C In patients with intracranial haemorrhage and a mechanical valve, unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin should be reinitiated as soon as possible following multidisciplinary discussion IIa C In the absence of stroke, replacement of oral anticoagulant therapy by unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin for 1–2 weeks should be considered in the case of Staphylococcus aureus IE under close monitoring IIa C Thrombolytic therapy is not recommended in patients with IE III C IE ¼ infective endocarditis. a Class of recommendation. b Level of evidence. c Reference(s) supporting recommendations. d There is very limited experience with new oral anticoagulant treatment in the field of IE. ESC Guidelines3114 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 41. can be observed in IE (i.e. previous antibiotic therapy, HACEK group, fungi, etc.). Immunological assays for antiphospholipid syndrome (i.e. lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies, and anti-b2- glycoprotein 1 antibodies; at least one must be positive for the diag- nosis of antiphospholipid syndrome on at least two occasions 12 weeks apart) should be undertaken in patients presenting with recur- rent systemic emboli or known systemic lupus erythematous.477 NTBE is first managed by treating the underlying pathology. If there is no contraindication, these patients should be anti- coagulated with unfractioned or low molecular weight heparin or warfarin, although there is little evidence to support this strategy. In NTBE, the use of direct thrombin or factor Xa inhibitors has not been evaluated. In antiphospholipid syndrome, lifelong anticoa- gulation is indicated. A trial comparing rivaroxaban (a factor Xa in- hibitor) and warfarin in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome is currently in progress.478 However, anticoagulation is associated with a risk of haemorrhagic conversion of embolic events. CT of the brain should be performed in patients with NBTE and cerebral attack before anticoagulation to rule out intra- cranial haemorrhage. Surgical intervention, valve debridement and/or reconstruction are often not recommended unless the patient presents with recur- rent thromboembolism despite well-controlled anticoagulation. Other indications for valve surgery are the same as for IE. In the context of cancer, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended (Endocarditis Team). 12.8.2 Infective endocarditis associated with cancer IE may be a potential marker of occult cancers. In a large, Danish, nationwide, population-based cohort study, 997 cancers were iden- tified among 8445 IE patients with a median follow-up of 3.5 years. The risk of abdominal and haematological cancers was high soon after IE diagnosis (within the first 3 months) and remained higher than expected in the long-term follow-up (.12 months) for ab- dominal cancer.479 Several bacteria have been reported in association with colonic cancer, with the strongest and best-documented relationship with S. bovis infection, specifically the S. gallolyticus subspecies; S. bovis in- fection has been related to the presence of gastrointestinal neopla- sia, which in most cases is colonic adenoma or carcinoma.480 However, it is still a source of debate whether the association of S. bovis/S. gallolyticus IE with colorectal tumours is merely a conse- quence of the gastrointestinal lesion or could trigger or promote colorectal cancer.481 In the setting of S. bovis IE, there is a need for proper microbiologic- al classification. In case of S. bovis/S. gallolyticus IE, it is recommended to rule out occult colon cancer during hospitalization. In the absence of any tumour, scheduling an annual colonoscopy is highly suggested.482 As for other tests (i.e. faecal occult blood), the serology-based detection of colorectal cancer—serum IgG concentrations against S. bovis antigens—is neither sensitive (not all colorectal tumours are colonized by S. bovis) nor specific.483 FDG PET/CT is increasingly used in the diagnostic workup of IE. It may play an interesting role in detecting gastrointestinal pathological activity and guide colonoscopy. However, negative PET/CT does not rule out significant colonic pathology. No study has examined its clinical value for the detection of occult colorectal cancer in pa- tients with S. bovis/S. gallolyticus IE. 13. To do and not to do messages from the guidelines Recommendations Classa Levelb 1. Prophylaxis/prevention Antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered for patients at highest risk for IE: a. Patients with any prosthetic valve, including transcatheter valve, or those in whom any prosthetic material was used for cardiac valve repair b. Patients with a previous episode of IE c. Patients with congenital heart disease (i.e. any type of cyanotic congenital heart disease or any type of congenital heart disease repaired with a prosthetic material) IIa C Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended in other forms of valvular or congenital heart disease III C Dental procedures Antibiotic prophylaxis should only be considered for dental procedures requiring manipulation of the gingival or periapical region of the teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa IIa C Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for local anaesthetic injections in non-infected tissues, treatment of superficial caries, removal of sutures, dental X-rays, placement or adjustment of removable prosthodontic or orthodontic appliances or braces, or following the shedding of deciduous teeth or trauma to the lips and oral mucosa III C Other procedures Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for respiratory tract procedures, including bronchoscopy or laryngoscopy, transnasal or endotracheal intubation, gastroscopy, colonoscopy, cystoscopy, vaginal or caesarean delivery, TOE or skin and soft tissue procedures III C 2. Recommendations for referring patients to the Reference Centre Patients with complicated IE should be evaluated and managed at an early stage in a reference centre with immediate surgical facilities and the presence of a multidisciplinary Endocarditis Team, including an ID specialist, a microbiologist, a cardiologist, imaging specialists, a cardiac surgeon and, if needed, a specialist in CHD IIa B For patients with non-complicated IE managed in a non-reference centre, there should be early and regular communication with the reference centre and, when needed, visits to the reference centre, should be made IIa B 3. Diagnosis TTE is recommended as the first-line imaging modality in suspected IE I B TOE is recommended in all patients with clinical suspicion of IE and a negative or non-diagnostic TTE I B ESC Guidelines 3115 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 42. 14. Appendix ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG): Jose Luis Za- morano (Chairperson) (Spain), Victor Aboyans (France), Stephan Achenbach (Germany), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Lina Badimon (Spain), Gonzalo Baro´n-Esquivias (Spain), Helmut Baumgartner (Germany), Jeroen J. Bax (The Netherlands), He´ctor Bueno (Spain), Scipione Carerj (Italy), Veronica Dean (France), Çetin Erol (Turkey), Donna Fitzsimons (UK), Oliver Gaemperli (Switzerland), Paulus Kirchhof (UK/Germany), Philippe Kolh (Belgium), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Gregory Y.H. Lip (UK), Petros Nihoyannopoulos (UK), Massimo F. Piepoli (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Adam Torbicki (Poland), Antonio Vaz Carneiro (Por- tugal), Stephan Windecker (Switzerland). ESC National Cardiac Societies actively involved in the re- view process of the 2015 ESC Guidelines on the management of in- fective endocarditis: Austria: Austrian Society of Cardiology, Bernhard Metzler; Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan Society of Cardiology, Tofig Jahangirov; Belarus: Belarusian Scientific Society of Cardiologists, Svetlana Sudzhaeva; Belgium: Belgian Society of Cardiology, Jean-Louis Va- noverschelde; Bosnia & Herzegovina: Association of Cardiolo- gists of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Amra Macic´-Dzˇankovic´; Bulgaria: Bulgarian Society of Cardiology, Temenuga Donova; Croatia: Cro- atian Cardiac Society, Bosˇko Skoric´; Cyprus: Cyprus Society of Cardiology, Georgios C. Georgiou; Czech Republic: Czech Soci- ety of Cardiology, Katerina Linhartova; Denmark: Danish Society of Cardiology, Niels Eske Bruun; Egypt: Egyptian Society of Cardi- ology, Hussein Rizk; Estonia: Estonian Society of Cardiology, Sirje Ko˜vask; Finland: Finnish Cardiac Society, Anu Turpeinen, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Macedonian Society of Cardi- ology, Silvana Jovanova; France: French Society of Cardiology, Franc¸ois Delahaye; Georgia: Georgian Society of Cardiology, Shal- va Petriashvili; Germany: German Cardiac Society, Christoph K. Naber; Greece: Hellenic Cardiological Society, Georgios Haha- lis; Hungary: Hungarian Society of Cardiology, Albert Varga; Ice- land: Icelandic Society of Cardiology, Tho´rdı´s J. Hrafnkelsdo´ttir; Israel: Israel Heart Society, Yaron Shapira; Italy: Italian Federation Recommendations Classa Levelb TOE is recommended in patients with clinical suspicion of IE when a prosthetic heart valve or an intracardiac device is present I B Repeat TTE and/or TOE within 5–7 days is recommended in case of initially negative examination when clinical suspicion of IE remains high I C Repeat TTE and/or TOE are recommended as soon as a new complication of IE is suspected (new murmur, embolism, persisting fever, HF, abscess, atrioventricular block) I B Intra-operative echocardiography is recommended in all cases of IE requiring surgery I B 4. Treatment Aortic or mitral NVE or PVE with severe regurgitation or obstruction causing symptoms of HF or echocardiographic signs of poor haemodynamic tolerance must by treated by urgent surgery I B Locally uncontrolled infection (abscess, false aneurysm, fistula, enlarging vegetation) must by treated by urgent surgery I B Infection caused by fungi or multiresistant organisms must by treated by urgent surgery I C Aortic or mitral NVE or PVE with persistent vegetations .10 mm after ≥1 embolic episodes despite appropriate antibiotic therapy must by treated by urgent surgery I B 5. Neurological complications After a silent embolism or transient ischaemic attack, cardiac surgery, if indicated, is recommended without delay I B Neurosurgery or endovascular therapy are indicated for very large, enlarging or ruptured intracranial infectious aneurysms I C Following intracranial haemorrhage, surgery should generally be postponed for ≥1 month IIa B 6. Cardiac device-related infective endocarditis Prolonged (i.e. before and after extraction) antibiotic therapy and complete hardware (device and leads) removal are recommended in definite CDRIE, as well as in presumably isolated pocket infection I C Percutaneous extraction is recommended in most patients with CDRIE, even those with vegetations .10 mm I B After device extraction, reassessment of the need for reimplantation is recommended I C Temporary pacing is not routinely recommended III C Routine antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before device implantation I B Recommendations Classa Levelb 7. Recommendations for the use of antithrombotic therapy Interruption of antiplatelet therapy is recommended in the presence of major bleeding I B In intracranial haemorrhage, interruption of all anticoagulation is recommended I C Thrombolytic therapy is not recommended in patients with IE III C ESC Guidelines3116 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 43. of Cardiology, Enrico Cecchi; Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyz Society of Car- diology, Alina Kerimkulova; Latvia: Latvian Society of Cardiology, Ginta Kamzola; Lithuania: Lithuanian Society of Cardiology, Regina Jonkaitiene; Luxembourg: Luxembourg Society of Cardiology, Kerstin Wagner; Malta: Maltese Cardiac Society, Daniela Cassar De- marco; Morocco: Moroccan Society of Cardiology, Jamila Zarzur; Norway: Norwegian Society of Cardiology, Svend Aakhus; Poland: Polish Cardiac Society, Janina Stepinska; Portugal: Portuguese Society of Cardiology, Cristina Gavina; Romania: Romanian Society of Cardiology, Dragos Vinereanu; Russia: Russian Society of Cardiology, Filipp Paleev; Serbia: Cardiology Society of Serbia, Bilja- na Obrenovic-Kircanski; Slovakia: Slovak Society of Cardiology, Va- sil Hrica´k; Spain: Spanish Society of Cardiology, Alberto San Roman, Sweden: Swedish Society of Cardiology, Ulf Thile´n; Switzerland: Swiss Society of Cardiology, Beat Kaufmann; The Netherlands: Netherlands Society of Cardiology, Berto J. Bouma; Tunisia: Tunis- ian Society of Cardiology and Cardio-Vascular Surgery, Hedi Baccar; Turkey: Turkish Society of Cardiology, Necla Ozer; United King- dom: British Cardiovascular Society, Chris P. Gale; Ukraine: Ukrain- ian Association of Cardiology, Elena Nesukay. 15. References 1. Thuny F, Grisoli D, Collart F, Habib G, Raoult D. Management of infective endo- carditis: challenges and perspectives. Lancet 2012;379:965–975. 2. Habib G. Management of infective endocarditis. Heart 2006;92:124–130. 3. Horstkotte D, Follath F, Gutschik E, Lengyel M, Oto A, Pavie A, Soler-Soler J, Thiene G, von Graevenitz A, Priori SG, Garcia MA, Blanc JJ, Budaj A, Cowie M, Dean V, Deckers J, Fernandez BE, Lekakis J, Lindahl B, Mazzotta G, Morais J, Oto A, Smiseth OA, Lekakis J, Vahanian A, Delahaye F, Parkhomenko A, Filipatos G, Aldershvile J, Vardas P. Guidelines on prevention, diagnosis and treat- ment of infective endocarditis executive summary: the Task Force on Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2004;25: 267–276. 4. Naber CK, Erbel R, Baddour LM, Horstkotte D. New guidelines for infective endocarditis: a call for collaborative research. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007;29: 615–616. 5. Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, Lockhart PB, Baddour LM, Levison M, Bolger A, Cabell CH, Takahashi M, Baltimore RS, Newburger JW, Strom BL, Tani LY, Gerber M, Bonow RO, Pallasch T, Shulman ST, Rowley AH, Burns JC, Ferrieri P, Gardner T, Goff D, Durack DT. Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Asso- ciation Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation 2007;116: 1736–1754. 6. Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG Jr, Bolger AF, Levison ME, Ferrieri P, Gerber MA, Tani LY, Gewitz MH, Tong DC, Steckelberg JM, Baltimore RS, Shulman ST, Burns JC, Falace DA, Newburger JW, Pallasch TJ, Takahashi M, Taubert KA. Infective endocarditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Circulation 2005;111: e394–e434. 7. Nishimura RA, Carabello BA, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Lytle BW, O’Gara PT, O’Rourke RA, Shah PM. ACC/AHA 2008 guideline update on valvular heart dis- ease: focused update on infective endocarditis: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: en- dorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovas- cular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2008;118:887–896. 8. Habib G, Hoen B, Tornos P, Thuny F, Prendergast B, Vilacosta I, Moreillon P, de Jesus AM, Thilen U, Lekakis J, Lengyel M, Muller L, Naber CK, Nihoyannopoulos P, Moritz A, Zamorano JL. Guidelines on the prevention, diag- nosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis (new version 2009): the Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the International Society of Chemotherapy (ISC) for Infection and Cancer. Eur Heart J 2009;30: 2369–2413. 9. Kang DH, Kim YJ, Kim SH, Sun BJ, Kim DH, Yun SC, Song JM, Choo SJ, Chung CH, Song JK, Lee JW, Sohn DW. Early surgery versus conventional treatment for infect- ive endocarditis. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2466–2473. 10. Bruun NE, Habib G, Thuny F, Sogaard P. Cardiac imaging in infectious endocardi- tis. Eur Heart J 2014;35:624–632. 11. Lancellotti P, Rosenhek R, Pibarot P, Iung B, Otto CM, Tornos P, Donal E, Prendergast B, Magne J, La Canna G, Pierard LA, Maurer G. ESC Working Group on Valvular Heart Disease position paper—heart valve clinics: organization, struc- ture, and experiences. Eur Heart J 2013;34:1597–1606. 12. Botelho-Nevers E, Thuny F, Casalta JP, Richet H, Gouriet F, Collart F, Riberi A, Habib G, Raoult D. Dramatic reduction in infective endocarditis-related mortality with a management-based approach. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1290–1298. 13. Duval X, Leport C. Prophylaxis of infective endocarditis: current tendencies, con- tinuing controversies. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:225–232. 14. Danchin N, Duval X, Leport C. Prophylaxis of infective endocarditis: French re- commendations 2002. Heart 2005;91:715–718. 15. Lockhart PB, Brennan MT, Sasser HC, Fox PC, Paster BJ, Bahrani-Mougeot FK. Bacteremia associated with toothbrushing and dental extraction. Circulation 2008;117:3118–3125. 16. Veloso TR, Amiguet M, Rousson V, Giddey M, Vouillamoz J, Moreillon P, Entenza JM. Induction of experimental endocarditis by continuous low-grade bac- teremia mimicking spontaneous bacteremia in humans. Infect Immun 2011;79: 2006–2011. 17. Van der Meer JT, Van Wijk W, Thompson J, Vandenbroucke JP, Valkenburg HA, Michel MF. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of native-valve endo- carditis. Lancet 1992;339:135–139. 18. Lacassin F, Hoen B, Leport C, Selton-Suty C, Delahaye F, Goulet V, Etienne J, Briancon S. Procedures associated with infective endocarditis in adults. A case con- trol study. Eur Heart J 1995;16:1968–1974. 19. Strom BL, Abrutyn E, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Feldman RS, Stolley PD, Levison ME, Korzeniowski OM, Kaye D. Dental and cardiac risk factors for infective endocarditis. A population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 1998;129: 761–769. 20. Duval X, Alla F, Hoen B, Danielou F, Larrieu S, Delahaye F, Leport C, Briancon S. Estimated risk of endocarditis in adults with predisposing cardiac conditions undergoing dental procedures with or without antibiotic prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:e102–e107. 21. Lee P, Shanson D. Results of a UK survey of fatal anaphylaxis after oral amoxicillin. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007;60:1172–1173. 22. Glenny AM, Oliver R, Roberts GJ, Hooper L, Worthington HV. Antibiotics for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in dentistry. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 10:CD003813. 23. Gould FK, Elliott TS, Foweraker J, Fulford M, Perry JD, Roberts GJ, Sandoe JA, Watkin RW, Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemother- apy. Guidelines for the prevention of endocarditis: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57:1035–1042. The CME text ‘2015 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Infective Endocarditis is accredited by the European Board for Accreditation in Cardiology (EBAC). EBAC works according to the quality standards of the European Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (EACCME), which is an institution of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). In compliance with EBAC/EACCME Guidelines, all authors participating in this programme have disclosed any potential conflicts of interest that might cause a bias in the article. The Organizing Committee is responsible for ensuring that all potential conflicts of interest relevant to the programme are declared to the participants prior to the CME activities. CME questions for this article are available at: European Heart Journal http://www.oxforde-learning.com/eurheartj and European Society of Cardiology http://www.escardio.org/ guidelines ESC Guidelines 3117 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 44. 24. Daly CG, Currie BJ, Jeyasingham MS, Moulds RF, Smith JA, Strathmore NF, Street AC, Goss AN. A change of heart: the new infective endocarditis prophy- laxis guidelines. Aust Dent J 2008;53:196–200. 25. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP III, Guyton RA, O’Gara PT, Ruiz CE, Skubas NJ, Sorajja P, Sundt TM III, Thomas JD. 2014 AHA/ ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: execu- tive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63: 2438–2488. 26. Naber C, Al Nawas B, Baumgartner H, Becker H, Block M, Erbel R, Ertl G, Fluckiger U, Franzen D, Gohlke-Barwolf C. Prophylaxe der infektio¨sen Endokar- ditis. Der Kardiologe 2007;1:243–250. 27. Prophylaxis against infective endocarditis: antimicrobial prophylaxis against infect- ive endocarditis in adults and children undergoing interventional procedures (CG64). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). http ://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG64. 28. Mohindra RK. A case of insufficient evidence equipoise: the NICE guidance on antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis. J Med Ethics 2010;36:567–570. 29. Chambers JB, Shanson D, Hall R, Pepper J, Venn G, McGurk M. Antibiotic prophy- laxis of endocarditis: the rest of the world and NICE. J R Soc Med 2011;104: 138–140. 30. Thornhill M, Dayer M, Forde J, Corey G, Chu V, Couper D, Lockhart P. Impact of the NICE guideline recommending cessation of antibiotic prophylaxis for preven- tion of infective endocarditis: before and after study. BMJ 2011;342:d2392. 31. Dayer MJ, Chambers JB, Prendergast B, Sandoe JA, Thornhill MH. NICE guidance on antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis: a survey of clinicians’ attitudes. QJM 2013;106:237–243. 32. Dayer MJ, Jones S, Prendergast B, Baddour LM, Lockhart PB, Thornhill MH. Inci- dence of infective endocarditis in England, 2000–13: a secular trend, interrupted time-series analysis. Lancet 2015;385:1219–1228. 33. Duval X, Delahaye F, Alla F, Tattevin P, Obadia JF, Le MV, Doco-Lecompte T, Celard M, Poyart C, Strady C, Chirouze C, Bes M, Cambau E, Iung B, Selton-Suty C, Hoen B. Temporal trends in infective endocarditis in the context of prophylaxis guideline modifications: three successive population-based sur- veys. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1968–1976. 34. Desimone DC, Tleyjeh IM, Correa de Sa DD, Anavekar NS, Lahr BD, Sohail MR, Steckelberg JM, Wilson WR, Baddour LM. Incidence of infective endocarditis caused by viridans group streptococci before and after publication of the 2007 American Heart Association’s endocarditis prevention guidelines. Circulation 2012;126:60–64. 35. Pasquali SK, He X, Mohamad Z, McCrindle BW, Newburger JW, Li JS, Shah SS. Trends in endocarditis hospitalizations at US children’s hospitals: impact of the 2007 American Heart Association Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guidelines. Am Heart J 2012;163:894–899. 36. Pant S, Patel NJ, Deshmukh A, Golwala H, Patel N, Badheka A, Hirsch GA, Mehta JL. Trends in infective endocarditis incidence, microbiology, and valve re- placement in the United States from 2000 to 2011. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65: 2070–2076. 37. Lalani T, Chu VH, Park LP, Cecchi E, Corey GR, Durante-Mangoni E, Fowler VG Jr., Gordon D, Grossi P, Hannan M, Hoen B, Munoz P, Rizk H, Kanj SS, Selton-Suty C, Sexton DJ, Spelman D, Ravasio V, Tripodi MF, Wang A. In-hospital and 1-year mortality in patients undergoing early surgery for prosthetic valve endocarditis. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:1495–1504. 38. Chu VH, Sexton DJ, Cabell CH, Reller LB, Pappas PA, Singh RK, Fowler VG Jr., Corey GR, Aksoy O, Woods CW. Repeat infective endocarditis: differentiating relapse from reinfection. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:406–409. 39. Baumgartner H, Bonhoeffer P, De Groot NM, de Haan F, Deanfield JE, Galie N, Gatzoulis MA, Gohlke-Baerwolf C, Kaemmerer H, Kilner P, Meijboom F, Mulder BJ, Oechslin E, Oliver JM, Serraf A, Szatmari A, Thaulow E, Vouhe PR, Walma E. ESC Guidelines for the management of grown-up congenital heart dis- ease (new version 2010). Eur Heart J 2010;31:2915–2957. 40. Knirsch W, Nadal D. Infective endocarditis in congenital heart disease. Eur J Pediatr 2011;170:1111–1127. 41. Sherman-Weber S, Axelrod P, Suh B, Rubin S, Beltramo D, Manacchio J, Furukawa S, Weber T, Eisen H, Samuel R. Infective endocarditis following ortho- topic heart transplantation: 10 cases and a review of the literature. Transpl Infect Dis 2004;6:165–170. 42. Findler M, Chackartchi T, Regev E. Dental implants in patients at high risk for in- fective endocarditis: a preliminary study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43: 1282–1285. 43. Regitz-Zagrosek V, Blomstrom LC, Borghi C, Cifkova R, Ferreira R, Foidart JM, Gibbs JS, Gohlke-Baerwolf C, Gorenek B, Iung B, Kirby M, Maas AH, Morais J, Nihoyannopoulos P, Pieper PG, Presbitero P, Roos-Hesselink JW, Schaufelberger M, Seeland U, Torracca L. ESC Guidelines on the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy: the Task Force on the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases during Pregnancy of the European Society of Cardi- ology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2011;32:3147–3197. 44. Yu CH, Minnema BJ, Gold WL. Bacterial infections complicating tongue piercing. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2010;21:e70–e74. 45. de Oliveira JC, Martinelli M, Nishioka SA, Varejao T, Uipe D, Pedrosa AA, Costa R, D’Avila A, Danik SB. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before the implantation of pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators: results of a large, prospective, rando- mized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2009; 2:29–34. 46. van Rijen MM, Bode LG, Baak DA, Kluytmans JA, Vos MC. Reduced costs for Staphylococcus aureus carriers treated prophylactically with mupirocin and chlor- hexidine in cardiothoracic and orthopaedic surgery. PLoS One 2012;7:e43065. 47. Bode LG, Kluytmans JA, Wertheim HF, Bogaers D, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Roosendaal R, Troelstra A, Box AT, Voss A, van der Tweel I, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA, Vos MC. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med 2010;362:9–17. 48. Recommendations on the management of oral dental foci of infection. French So- ciety of Oral Surgery. http://www.societechirorale.com/documents/ Recommandations/foyers_infectieux_argument-EN.pdf. 49. Goldmann DA, Hopkins CC, Karchmer AW, Abel RM, McEnany MT, Akins C, Buckley MJ, Moellering RC Jr. Cephalothin prophylaxis in cardiac valve surgery. A prospective, double-blind comparison of two-day and six-day regimens. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1977;73:470–479. 50. Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Almirante B, Tornos P, Pigrau C, Sambola A, Igual A, Pahissa A. Contemporary epidemiology and prognosis of health care-associated in- fective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:1287–1297. 51. Selton-Suty C, Celard M, Le MV, Doco-Lecompte T, Chirouze C, Iung B, Strady C, Revest M, Vandenesch F, Bouvet A, Delahaye F, Alla F, Duval X, Hoen B. Pre- eminence of Staphylococcus aureus in infective endocarditis: a 1-year population- based survey. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1230–1239. 52. Benito N, Miro JM, de Lazzari E, Cabell CH, del Rio A, Altclas J, Commerford P, Delahaye F, Dragulescu S, Giamarellou H, Habib G, Kamarulzaman A, Kumar AS, Nacinovich FM, Suter F, Tribouilloy C, Venugopal K, Moreno A, Fowler VG Jr. Health care-associated native valve endocarditis: importance of non-nosocomial acquisition. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:586–594. 53. Slipczuk L, Codolosa JN, Davila CD, Romero-Corral A, Yun J, Pressman GS, Figueredo VM. Infective endocarditis epidemiology over five decades: a systematic review. PLoS One 2013;8:e82665. 54. Tornos P, Iung B, Permanyer-Miralda G, Baron G, Delahaye F, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Butchart EG, Ravaud P, Vahanian A. Infective endocarditis in Europe: lessons from the Euro heart survey. Heart 2005;91:571–575. 55. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Baron-Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, Borger MA, Carrel TP, De Bonis M, Evangelista A, Falk V, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Pierard L, Price S, Schafers HJ, Schuler G, Stepinska J, Swedberg K, Takkenberg J, von Oppell UO, Windecker S, Zamorano JL, Zembala M. Guidelines on the man- agement of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 2012;33:2451–2496. 56. Chirillo F, Scotton P, Rocco F, Rigoli R, Borsatto F, Pedrocco A, De Leo A, Minniti G, Polesel E, Olivari Z. Impact of a multidisciplinary management strategy on the outcome of patients with native valve infective endocarditis. Am J Cardiol 2013;112:1171–1176. 57. Thuny F, Giorgi R, Habachi R, Ansaldi S, Le Dolley Y, Casalta JP, Avierinos JF, Riberi A, Renard S, Collart F, Raoult D, Habib G. Excess mortality and morbidity in patients surviving infective endocarditis. Am Heart J 2012;164:94–101. 58. Thuny F, Di Salvo G, Belliard O, Avierinos JF, Pergola V, Rosenberg V, Casalta JP, Gouvernet J, Derumeaux G, Iarussi D, Ambrosi P, Calabro R, Riberi A, Collart F, Metras D, Lepidi H, Raoult D, Harle JR, Weiller PJ, Cohen A, Habib G. Risk of em- bolism and death in infective endocarditis: prognostic value of echocardiography: a prospective multicenter study. Circulation 2005;112:69–75. 59. Perez de Isla L, Zamorano J, Lennie V, Vazquez J, Ribera JM, Macaya C. Negative blood culture infective endocarditis in the elderly: long-term follow-up. Gerontology 2007;53:245–249. 60. Pierrakos C, Vincent JL. Sepsis biomarkers: a review. Crit Care 2010;14:R15. 61. Yu CW, Juan LI, Hsu SC, Chen CK, Wu CW, Lee CC, Wu JY. Role of procalcitonin in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31: 935–941. 62. Polewczyk A, Janion M, Podlaski R, Kutarski A. Clinical manifestations of lead- dependent infective endocarditis: analysis of 414 cases. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2014;33:1601–1608. 63. Habib G, Avierinos JF, Thuny F. Aortic valve endocarditis: is there an optimal sur- gical timing? Curr Opin Cardiol 2007;22:77–83. 64. Habib G, Badano L, Tribouilloy C, Vilacosta I, Zamorano JL, Galderisi M, Voigt JU, Sicari R, Cosyns B, Fox K, Aakhus S. Recommendations for the practice of echocar- diography in infective endocarditis. Eur J Echocardiogr 2010;11:202–219. ESC Guidelines3118 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 45. 65. Mugge A, Daniel WG, Frank G, Lichtlen PR. Echocardiography in infective endocar- ditis: reassessment of prognostic implications of vegetation size determined by the transthoracic and the transesophageal approach. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14: 631–638. 66. Rasmussen RV, Host U, Arpi M, Hassager C, Johansen HK, Korup E, Schonheyder HC, Berning J, Gill S, Rosenvinge FS, Fowler VG Jr, Moller JE, Skov RL, Larsen CT, Hansen TF, Mard S, Smit J, Andersen PS, Bruun NE. Prevalence of infective endocarditis in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: the va- lue of screening with echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr 2011;12:414–420. 67. Incani A, Hair C, Purnell P, O’Brien DP, Cheng AC, Appelbe A, Athan E. Staphylo- coccus aureus bacteraemia: evaluation of the role of transoesophageal echocardiog- raphy in identifying clinically unsuspected endocarditis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2013;32:1003–1008. 68. Daniel WG, Mugge A, Martin RP, Lindert O, Hausmann D, Nonnast-Daniel B, Laas J, Lichtlen PR. Improvement in the diagnosis of abscesses associated with endocarditis by transesophageal echocardiography. N Engl J Med 1991;324: 795–800. 69. Sochowski RA, Chan KL. Implication of negative results on a monoplane transeso- phageal echocardiographic study in patients with suspected infective endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:216–221. 70. Karalis D, Chandrasekaran K, Wahl J, Ross J, Mintz G. Transesophageal echocardio- graphic recognition of mitral valve abnormalities associated with aortic valve endo- carditis. Am Heart J 1990;119:1209–1211. 71. Pedersen WR, Walker M, Olson JD, Gobel F, Lange HW, Daniel JA, Rogers J, Longe T, Kane M, Mooney MR. Value of transesophageal echocardiography as an adjunct to transthoracic echocardiography in evaluation of native and prosthetic valve endocarditis. Chest 1991;100:351–356. 72. Vilacosta I, Graupner C, San Roman JA, Sarria C, Ronderos R, Fernandez C, Mancini L, Sanz O, Sanmartin JV, Stoermann W. Risk of embolization after institu- tion of antibiotic therapy for infective endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39: 1489–1495. 73. Shapira Y, Weisenberg DE, Vaturi M, Sharoni E, Raanani E, Sahar G, Vidne BA, Battler A, Sagie A. The impact of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography in infective endocarditis. Isr Med Assoc J 2007;9:299–302. 74. Sanchez-Enrique C, Vilacosta I, Moreno HG, Delgado-Bolton R, Perez-Alonso P, Martinez A, Vivas D, Ferrera C, Olmos C. Infected marantic endocarditis with leu- kemoid reaction. Circ J 2014;78:2325–2327. 75. Eudailey K, Lewey J, Hahn RT, George I. Aggressive infective endocarditis and the importance of early repeat echocardiographic imaging. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;147:e26–e28. 76. Berdejo J, Shibayama K, Harada K, Tanaka J, Mihara H, Gurudevan SV, Siegel RJ, Shiota T. Evaluation of vegetation size and its relationship with embolism in infect- ive endocarditis: a real-time 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:149–154. 77. Liu YW, Tsai WC, Lin CC, Hsu CH, Li WT, Lin LJ, Chen JH. Usefulness of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography for diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Scand Cardiovasc J 2009;43:318–323. 78. Hekimian G, Kim M, Passefort S, Duval X, Wolff M, Leport C, Leplat C, Steg G, Iung B, Vahanian A, Messika-Zeitoun D. Preoperative use and safety of coronary angiography for acute aortic valve infective endocarditis. Heart 2010;96:696–700. 79. Feuchtner GM, Stolzmann P, Dichtl W, Schertler T, Bonatti J, Scheffel H, Mueller S, Plass A, Mueller L, Bartel T, Wolf F, Alkadhi H. Multislice computed tomography in infective endocarditis: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and in- traoperative findings. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:436–444. 80. Fagman E, Perrotta S, Bech-Hanssen O, Flinck A, Lamm C, Olaison L, Svensson G. ECG-gated computed tomography: a new role for patients with suspected aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur Radiol 2012;22:2407–2414. 81. Goddard AJ, Tan G, Becker J. Computed tomography angiography for the detec- tion and characterization of intra-cranial aneurysms: current status. Clin Radiol 2005; 60:1221–1236. 82. Huang JS, Ho AS, Ahmed A, Bhalla S, Menias CO. Borne identity: CT imaging of vascular infections. Emerg Radiol 2011;18:335–343. 83. Snygg-Martin U, Gustafsson L, Rosengren L, Alsio A, Ackerholm P, Andersson R, Olaison L. Cerebrovascular complications in patients with left-sided infective endo- carditis are common: a prospective study using magnetic resonance imaging and neurochemical brain damage markers. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:23–30. 84. Cooper HA, Thompson EC, Laureno R, Fuisz A, Mark AS, Lin M, Goldstein SA. Sub- clinical brain embolization in left-sided infective endocarditis: results from the evaluation by MRI of the brains of patients with left-sided intracardiac solid masses (EMBOLISM) pilot study. Circulation 2009;120:585–591. 85. Duval X, Iung B, Klein I, Brochet E, Thabut G, Arnoult F, Lepage L, Laissy JP, Wolff M, Leport C. Effect of early cerebral magnetic resonance imaging on clinical decisions in infective endocarditis: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 2010;152: 497–504, W175. 86. Okazaki S, Yoshioka D, Sakaguchi M, Sawa Y, Mochizuki H, Kitagawa K. Acute ische- mic brain lesions in infective endocarditis: incidence, related factors, and post- operative outcome. Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:155–162. 87. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, Nettles R, Fowler VG Jr, Ryan T, Bashore T, Corey GR. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocar- ditis. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:633–638. 88. Iung B, Tubiana S, Klein I, Messika-Zeitoun D, Brochet E, Lepage L, Al Attar N, Ruimy R, Leport C, Wolff M, Duval X. Determinants of cerebral lesions in endo- carditis on systematic cerebral magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study. Stroke 2013;44:3056–3062. 89. Goulenok T, Klein I, Mazighi M, Messika-Zeitoun D, Alexandra JF, Mourvillier B, Laissy JP, Leport C, Iung B, Duval X. Infective endocarditis with symptomatic cere- bral complications: contribution of cerebral magnetic resonance imaging. Cerebro- vasc Dis 2013;35:327–336. 90. Hess A, Klein I, Iung B, Lavallee P, Ilic-Habensus E, Dornic Q, Arnoult F, Mimoun L, Wolff M, Duval X, Laissy JP. Brain MRI findings in neurologically asymptomatic pa- tients with infective endocarditis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1579–1584. 91. Iung B, Klein I, Mourvillier B, Olivot JM, Detaint D, Longuet P, Ruimy R, Fourchy D, Laurichesse JJ, Laissy JP, Escoubet B, Duval X. Respective effects of early cerebral and abdominal magnetic resonance imaging on clinical decisions in infective endo- carditis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;13:703–710. 92. Palestro CJ, Brown ML, Forstrom LA, Greenspan BS, McAfee JG, Royal HD, Schauwecker DS, Seabold JE, Signore A. Society of Nuclear Medicine Procedure Guideline for 99mTc-exametazime (HMPAO)-labeled leukocyte scintigraphy for suspected infection/inflammation, version 3.0, 2004. HMPAO_v3 pdf 2004. 93. Saby L, Laas O, Habib G, Cammilleri S, Mancini J, Tessonnier L, Casalta JP, Gouriet F, Riberi A, Avierinos JF, Collart F, Mundler O, Raoult D, Thuny F. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis: increased valvular 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a novel major criterion. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:2374–2382. 94. Erba PA, Conti U, Lazzeri E, Sollini M, Doria R, De Tommasi SM, Bandera F, Tascini C, Menichetti F, Dierckx RA, Signore A, Mariani G. Added value of 99mTc-HMPAO-labeled leukocyte SPECT/CT in the characterization and manage- ment of patients with infectious endocarditis. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1235–1243. 95. Rouzet F, Chequer R, Benali K, Lepage L, Ghodbane W, Duval X, Iung B, Vahanian A, Le Guludec D, Hyafil F. Respective performance of 18F-FDG PET and radiolabeled leukocyte scintigraphy for the diagnosis of prosthetic valve endo- carditis. J Nucl Med 2014;55:1980–1985. 96. La Scola B, Raoult D. Direct identification of bacteria in positive blood culture bot- tles by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrom- etry. PLoS One 2009;4:e8041. 97. Raoult D, Casalta JP, Richet H, Khan M, Bernit E, Rovery C, Branger S, Gouriet F, Imbert G, Bothello E, Collart F, Habib G. Contribution of systematic serological testing in diagnosis of infective endocarditis. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:5238–5242. 98. Fournier PE, Thuny F, Richet H, Lepidi H, Casalta JP, Arzouni JP, Maurin M, Celard M, Mainardi JL, Caus T, Collart F, Habib G, Raoult D. Comprehensive diag- nostic strategy for blood culture-negative endocarditis: a prospective study of 819 new cases. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:131–140. 99. Loyens M, Thuny F, Grisoli D, Fournier PE, Casalta JP, Vitte J, Habib G, Raoult D. Link between endocarditis on porcine bioprosthetic valves and allergy to pork. Int J Cardiol 2013;167:600–602. 100. Habib G, Derumeaux G, Avierinos JF, Casalta JP, Jamal F, Volot F, Garcia M, Lefevre J, Biou F, Maximovitch-Rodaminoff A, Fournier PE, Ambrosi P, Velut JG, Cribier A, Harle JR, Weiller PJ, Raoult D, Luccioni R. Value and limitations of the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33: 2023–2029. 101. Hill EE, Herijgers P, Claus P, Vanderschueren S, Peetermans WE, Herregods MC. Abscess in infective endocarditis: the value of transesophageal echocardiography and outcome: a 5-year study. Am Heart J 2007;154:923–928. 102. Vieira ML, Grinberg M, Pomerantzeff PM, Andrade JL, Mansur AJ. Repeated echo- cardiographic examinations of patients with suspected infective endocarditis. Heart 2004;90:1020–1024. 103. Thuny F, Gaubert JY, Jacquier A, Tessonnier L, Cammilleri S, Raoult D, Habib G. Imaging investigations in infective endocarditis: current approach and perspec- tives. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2013;106:52–62. 104. Gahide G, Bommart S, Demaria R, Sportouch C, Dambia H, Albat B, Vernhet-Kovacsik H. Preoperative evaluation in aortic endocarditis: findings on cardiac CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:574–578. 105. Thuny F, Avierinos JF, Tribouilloy C, Giorgi R, Casalta JP, Milandre L, Brahim A, Nadji G, Riberi A, Collart F, Renard S, Raoult D, Habib G. Impact of cerebrovas- cular complications on mortality and neurologic outcome during infective endo- carditis: a prospective multicentre study. Eur Heart J 2007;28:1155–1161. 106. Hyafil F, Rouzet F, Lepage L, Benali K, Raffoul R, Duval X, Hvass U, Iung B, Nataf P, Lebtahi R, Vahanian A, Le Guludec D. Role of radiolabelled leucocyte scintigraphy ESC Guidelines 3119 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 46. in patients with a suspicion of prosthetic valve endocarditis and inconclusive echo- cardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;14:586–594. 107. Bensimhon L, Lavergne T, Hugonnet F, Mainardi JL, Latremouille C, Maunoury C, Lepillier A, Le Heuzey JY, Faraggi M. Whole body [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose posi- tron emission tomography imaging for the diagnosis of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection: a preliminary prospective study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011;17:836–844. 108. Sarrazin JF, Philippon F, Tessier M, Guimond J, Molin F, Champagne J, Nault I, Blier L, Nadeau M, Charbonneau L, Trottier M, O’Hara G. Usefulness of fluorine-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography for identifica- tion of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1616–1625. 109. Leone S, Ravasio V, Durante-Mangoni E, Crapis M, Carosi G, Scotton PG, Barzaghi N, Falcone M, Chinello P, Pasticci MB, Grossi P, Utili R, Viale P, Rizzi M, Suter F. Epidemiology, characteristics, and outcome of infective endocar- ditis in Italy: the Italian Study on Endocarditis. Infection 2012;40:527–535. 110. Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miro JM, Fowler VG Jr, Bayer AS, Karchmer AW, Olaison L, Pappas PA, Moreillon P, Chambers ST, Chu VH, Falco V, Holland DJ, Jones P, Klein JL, Raymond NJ, Read KM, Tripodi MF, Utili R, Wang A, Woods CW, Cabell CH. Clinical presentation, etiology, and out- come of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:463–473. 111. Nadji G, Rusinaru D, Remadi JP, Jeu A, Sorel C, Tribouilloy C. Heart failure in left- sided native valve infective endocarditis: characteristics, prognosis, and results of surgical treatment. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:668–675. 112. Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Fernandez C, Lopez J, Sarria C, Ferrera C, Revilla A, Silva J, Vivas D, Gonzalez I, San Roman JA. Contemporary epidemiology and prognosis of septic shock in infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 2013;34:1999–2006. 113. Garcia-Cabrera E, Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Almirante B, Ivanova-Georgieva R, Noureddine M, Plata A, Lomas JM, Galvez-Acebal J, Hidalgo-Tenorio C, Ruiz-Morales J, Martinez-Marcos FJ, Reguera JM, Torre-Lima J, de Alarcon GA. Neurological complications of infective endocarditis: risk factors, outcome, and impact of cardiac surgery: a multicenter observational study. Circulation 2013; 127:2272–2284. 114. Delahaye F, Alla F, Beguinot I, Bruneval P, Doco-Lecompte T, Lacassin F, Selton-Suty C, Vandenesch F, Vernet V, Hoen B. In-hospital mortality of infective endocarditis: prognostic factors and evolution over an 8-year period. Scand J Infect Dis 2007;39:849–857. 115. Thuny F, Beurtheret S, Mancini J, Gariboldi V, Casalta JP, Riberi A, Giorgi R, Gouriet F, Tafanelli L, Avierinos JF, Renard S, Collart F, Raoult D, Habib G. The timing of surgery influences mortality and morbidity in adults with severe compli- cated infective endocarditis: a propensity analysis. Eur Heart J 2011;32: 2027–2033. 116. Chu VH, Cabell CH, Benjamin DK Jr, Kuniholm EF, Fowler VG Jr, Engemann J, Sexton DJ, Corey GR, Wang A. Early predictors of in-hospital death in infective endocarditis. Circulation 2004;109:1745–1749. 117. San Roman JA, Lopez J, Vilacosta I, Luaces M, Sarria C, Revilla A, Ronderos R, Stoermann W, Gomez I, Fernandez-Aviles F. Prognostic stratification of patients with left-sided endocarditis determined at admission. Am J Med 2007;120: 369–367. 118. Chambers J, Sandoe J, Ray S, Prendergast B, Taggart D, Westaby S, Arden C, Grothier L, Wilson J, Campbell B, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Mestres CA, Rosenhek R, Pibarot P, Otto C. The infective endocarditis team: recommendations from an international working group. Heart 2014;100:524–527. 119. Duval X, Alla F, Doco-Lecompte T, Le MV, Delahaye F, Mainardi JL, Plesiat P, Celard M, Hoen B, Leport C. Diabetes mellitus and infective endocarditis: the in- sulin factor in patient morbidity and mortality. Eur Heart J 2007;28:59–64. 120. Gelsomino S, Maessen JG, van der Veen F, Livi U, Renzulli A, Luca F, Carella R, Crudeli E, Rubino A, Rostagno C, Russo C, Borghetti V, Beghi C, De Bonis M, Gensini GF, Lorusso R. Emergency surgery for native mitral valve endocarditis: the impact of septic and cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:1469–1476. 121. Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Pozo E, Fernandez C, Sarria C, Lopez J, Ferrera C, Maroto L, Gonzalez I, Vivas D, Palacios J, San Roman JA. Prognostic implications of diabetes in patients with left-sided endocarditis: findings from a large cohort study. Medi- cine (Baltimore) 2014;93:114–119. 122. Hoen B, Alla F, Selton-Suty C, Beguinot I, Bouvet A, Briancon S, Casalta JP, Danchin N, Delahaye F, Etienne J, Le Moing V, Leport C, Mainardi JL, Ruimy R, Vandenesch F. Changing profile of infective endocarditis: results of a 1-year survey in France. JAMA 2002;288:75–81. 123. Lopez J, Sevilla T, Vilacosta I, Sarria C, Revilla A, Ortiz C, Ferrera C, Olmos C, Gomez I, San Roman JA. Prognostic role of persistent positive blood cultures after initiation of antibiotic therapy in left-sided infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:1749–1754. 124. Revilla A, Lopez J, Vilacosta I, Villacorta E, Rollan MJ, Echevarria JR, Carrascal Y, Di Stefano S, Fulquet E, Rodriguez E, Fiz L, San Roman JA. Clinical and prognostic profile of patients with infective endocarditis who need urgent surgery. Eur Heart J 2007;28:65–71. 125. Mirabel M, Sonneville R, Hajage D, Novy E, Tubach F, Vignon P, Perez P, Lavoue S, Kouatchet A, Pajot O, Mekontso-Dessap A, Tonnelier JM, Bollaert PE, Frat JP, Navellou JC, Hyvernat H, Hssain AA, Timsit JF, Megarbane B, Wolff M, Trouillet JL. Long-term outcomes and cardiac surgery in critically ill patients with infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1195–1204. 126. Durack DT, Pelletier LL, Petersdorf RG. Chemotherapy of experimental strepto- coccal endocarditis. II. Synergism between penicillin and streptomycin against penicillin-sensitive streptococci. J Clin Invest 1974;53:829–833. 127. Wilson WR, Geraci JE, Wilkowske CJ, Washington JA. Short-term intramuscular therapy with procaine penicillin plus streptomycin for infective endocarditis due to viridans streptococci. Circulation 1978;57:1158–1161. 128. Cosgrove SE, Vigliani GA, Fowler VG Jr, Abrutyn E, Corey GR, Levine DP, Rupp ME, Chambers HF, Karchmer AW, Boucher HW. Initial low-dose gentami- cin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis is nephrotoxic. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:713–721. 129. Dahl A, Rasmussen RV, Bundgaard H, Hassager C, Bruun LE, Lauridsen TK, Moser C, Sogaard P, Arpi M, Bruun NE. Enterococcus faecalis infective endocar- ditis: a pilot study of the relationship between duration of gentamicin treatment and outcome. Circulation 2013;127:1810–1817. 130. Miro JM, Garcia-de-la-Maria C, Armero Y, Soy D, Moreno A, del Rio A, Almela M, Sarasa M, Mestres CA, Gatell JM, Jimenez de Anta MT, Marco F. Addition of gen- tamicin or rifampin does not enhance the effectiveness of daptomycin in treat- ment of experimental endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009;53:4172–4177. 131. Garrigos C, Murillo O, Lora-Tamayo J, Verdaguer R, Tubau F, Cabellos C, Cabo J, Ariza J. Fosfomycin-daptomycin and other fosfomycin combinations as alternative therapies in experimental foreign-body infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylo- coccus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:606–610. 132. Kullar R, Casapao AM, Davis SL, Levine DP, Zhao JJ, Crank CW, Segreti J, Sakoulas G, Cosgrove SE, Rybak MJ. A multicentre evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of high-dose daptomycin for the treatment of infective endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013;68:2921–2926. 133. Dhand A, Bayer AS, Pogliano J, Yang SJ, Bolaris M, Nizet V, Wang G, Sakoulas G. Use of antistaphylococcal beta-lactams to increase daptomycin activity in eradi- cating persistent bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: role of enhanced daptomycin binding. Clin Infect Dis 2011;53:158–163. 134. Miro JM, Entenza JM, del Rio A, Velasco M, Castaneda X, Garcia de la Maria C, Giddey M, Armero Y, Pericas JM, Cervera C, Mestres CA, Almela M, Falces C, Marco F, Moreillon P, Moreno A. High-dose daptomycin plus fosfomycin is safe and effective in treating methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylo- coccus aureus endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:4511–4515. 135. Gould FK, Denning DW, Elliott TS, Foweraker J, Perry JD, Prendergast BD, Sandoe JA, Spry MJ, Watkin RW, Working Party of the British Society for Anti- microbial Chemotherapy. Guidelines for the diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of endocarditis in adults: a report of the Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:269–289. 136. Westling K, Aufwerber E, Ekdahl C, Friman G, Gardlund B, Julander I, Olaison L, Olesund C, Rundstrom H, Snygg-Martin U, Thalme A, Werner M, Hogevik H. Swedish guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis. Scand J Infect Dis 2007;39:929–946. 137. Francioli P, Ruch W, Stamboulian D. Treatment of streptococcal endocarditis with a single daily dose of ceftriaxone and netilmicin for 14 days: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21:1406–1410. 138. Francioli P, Etienne J, Hoigne R, Thys JP, Gerber A. Treatment of streptococcal endocarditis with a single daily dose of ceftriaxone sodium for 4 weeks. Efficacy and outpatient treatment feasibility. JAMA 1992;267:264–267. 139. Sexton DJ, Tenenbaum MJ, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Tice AD, Gilbert D, Dismukes W, Drew RH, Durack DT. Ceftriaxone once daily for four weeks com- pared with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin once daily for two weeks for treatment of endocarditis due to penicillin-susceptible streptococci. Endocarditis Treatment Consortium Group. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:1470–1474. 140. Cremieux AC, Maziere B, Vallois JM, Ottaviani M, Azancot A, Raffoul H, Bouvet A, Pocidalo JJ, Carbon C. Evaluation of antibiotic diffusion into cardiac vegetations by quantitative autoradiography. J Infect Dis 1989;159:938–944. 141. Wilson AP, Gaya H. Treatment of endocarditis with teicoplanin: a retrospective analysis of 104 cases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996;38:507–521. 142. Venditti M, Tarasi A, Capone A, Galie M, Menichetti F, Martino P, Serra P. Teico- planin in the treatment of enterococcal endocarditis: clinical and microbiological study. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997;40:449–452. 143. Moet GJ, Dowzicky MJ, Jones RN. Tigecycline (GAR-936) activity against Strepto- coccus gallolyticus (bovis) and viridans group streptococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007;57:333–336. ESC Guidelines3120 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 47. 144. Levy CS, Kogulan P, Gill VJ, Croxton MB, Kane JG, Lucey DR. Endocarditis caused by penicillin-resistant viridans streptococci: 2 cases and controversies in therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:577–579. 145. Knoll B, Tleyjeh IM, Steckelberg JM, Wilson WR, Baddour LM. Infective endocar- ditis due to penicillin-resistant viridans group streptococci. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44: 1585–1592. 146. Hsu RB, Lin FY. Effect of penicillin resistance on presentation and outcome of nonenterococcal streptococcal infective endocarditis. Cardiology 2006;105: 234–239. 147. Shelburne SA III, Greenberg SB, Aslam S, Tweardy DJ. Successful ceftriaxone ther- apy of endocarditis due to penicillin non-susceptible viridans streptococci. J Infect 2007;54:e99–e101. 148. Nicolau DP, Freeman CD, Belliveau PP, Nightingale CH, Ross JW, Quintiliani R. Experience with a once-daily aminoglycoside program administered to 2,184 adult patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995;39:650–655. 149. Martinez E, Miro JM, Almirante B, Aguado JM, Fernandez-Viladrich P, Fernandez-Guerrero ML, Villanueva JL, Dronda F, Moreno-Torrico A, Montejo M, Llinares P, Gatell JM. Effect of penicillin resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae on the presentation, prognosis, and treatment of pneumococcal endocarditis in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2002;35:130–139. 150. Friedland IR, McCracken GH Jr. Management of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. N Engl J Med 1994;331:377–382. 151. Lefort A, Lortholary O, Casassus P, Selton-Suty C, Guillevin L, Mainardi JL. Com- parison between adult endocarditis due to beta-hemolytic streptococci (ser- ogroups A, B, C, and G) and Streptococcus milleri: a multicenter study in France. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:2450–2456. 152. Sambola A, Miro JM, Tornos MP, Almirante B, Moreno-Torrico A, Gurgui M, Martinez E, del Rio A, Azqueta M, Marco F, Gatell JM. Streptococcus agalactiae in- fective endocarditis: analysis of 30 cases and review of the literature, 1962–1998. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1576–1584. 153. Giuliano S, Caccese R, Carfagna P, Vena A, Falcone M, Venditti M. Endocarditis caused by nutritionally variant streptococci: a case report and literature review. Infez Med 2012;20:67–74. 154. Adam EL, Siciliano RF, Gualandro DM, Calderaro D, Issa VS, Rossi F, Caramelli B, Mansur AJ, Strabelli TM. Case series of infective endocarditis caused by Granulica- tella species. Int J Infect Dis 2015;31:56–58. 155. Anguera I, del Rio A, Miro JM, Matinez-Lacasa X, Marco F, Guma JR, Quaglio G, Claramonte X, Moreno A, Mestres CA, Mauri E, Azqueta M, Benito N, Garcia-de la Maria C, Almela M, Jimenez-Exposito MJ, Sued O, de Lazzari E, Gatell JM. Staphylococcus lugdunensis infective endocarditis: description of 10 cases and ana- lysis of native valve, prosthetic valve, and pacemaker lead endocarditis clinical pro- files. Heart 2005;91:e10. 156. Cone LA, Sontz EM, Wilson JW, Mitruka SN. Staphylococcus capitis endocarditis due to a transvenous endocardial pacemaker infection: case report and review of Staphylococcus capitis endocarditis. Int J Infect Dis 2005;9:335–339. 157. Sandoe JA, Kerr KG, Reynolds GW, Jain S. Staphylococcus capitis endocarditis: two cases and review of the literature. Heart 1999;82:e1. 158. Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococ- cus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1982;97:496–503. 159. Apellaniz G, Valdes M, Perez R, Martin-Luengo F, Garcia A, Soria F, Gomez J. [Teicoplanin versus cloxacillin, cloxacillin-gentamycin and vancomycin in the treatment of experimental endocarditis caused by methicillin-sensitive Staphylo- coccus aureus]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 1991;9:208–210. 160. Casalta JP, Zaratzian C, Hubert S, Thuny F, Gouriet F, Habib G, Grisoli D, Deharo JC, Raoult D. Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis with high doses of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin—preliminary report. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013;42:190–191. 161. Chirouze C, Cabell CH, Fowler VG Jr, Khayat N, Olaison L, Miro JM, Habib G, Abrutyn E, Eykyn S, Corey GR, Selton-Suty C, Hoen B. Prognostic factors in 61 cases of Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic valve infective endocarditis from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis merged database. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1323–1327. 162. Zimmerli W, Widmer AF, Blatter M, Frei R, Ochsner PE. Role of rifampin for treat- ment of orthopedic implant-related staphylococcal infections: a randomized con- trolled trial. Foreign-Body Infection (FBI) Study Group. JAMA 1998;279:1537–1541. 163. O’Connor S, Andrew P, Batt M, Becquemin JP. A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for aortic graft infection. J Vasc Surg 2006;44:38–45. 164. Riedel DJ, Weekes E, Forrest GN. Addition of rifampin to standard therapy for treatment of native valve infective endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:2463–2467. 165. Howden BP, Johnson PD, Ward PB, Stinear TP, Davies JK. Isolates with low-level vancomycin resistance associated with persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococ- cus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:3039–3047. 166. Bae IG, Federspiel JJ, Miro JM, Woods CW, Park L, Rybak MJ, Rude TH, Bradley S, Bukovski S, de la Maria CG, Kanj SS, Korman TM, Marco F, Murdoch DR, Plesiat P, Rodriguez-Creixems M, Reinbott P, Steed L, Tattevin P, Tripodi MF, Newton KL, Corey GR, Fowler VG Jr. Heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate susceptibility phenotype in bloodstream methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from an international cohort of patients with infective endocarditis: prevalence, geno- type, and clinical significance. J Infect Dis 2009;200:1355–1366. 167. van Hal SJ, Lodise TP, Paterson DL. The clinical significance of vancomycin min- imum inhibitory concentration in Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic re- view and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:755–771. 168. Fowler VG Jr, Boucher HW, Corey GR, Abrutyn E, Karchmer AW, Rupp ME, Levine DP, Chambers HF, Tally FP, Vigliani GA, Cabell CH, Link AS, DeMeyer I, Filler SG, Zervos M, Cook P, Parsonnet J, Bernstein JM, Price CS, Forrest GN, Fatkenheuer G, Gareca M, Rehm SJ, Brodt HR, Tice A, Cosgrove SE. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococ- cus aureus. N Engl J Med 2006;355:653–665. 169. Levine DP, Lamp KC. Daptomycin in the treatment of patients with infective endocarditis: experience from a registry. Am J Med 2007;120(Suppl 1):S28–S33. 170. Carugati M, Bayer AS, Miro JM, Park LP, Guimaraes AC, Skoutelis A, Fortes CQ, Durante-Mangoni E, Hannan MM, Nacinovich F, Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Grossi P, Tan RS, Holland T, Fowler VG Jr, Corey RG, Chu VH. High-dose daptomycin ther- apy for left-sided infective endocarditis: a prospective study from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:6213–6222. 171. Moore CL, Osaki-Kiyan P, Haque NZ, Perri MB, Donabedian S, Zervos MJ. Dap- tomycin versus vancomycin for bloodstream infections due to methicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a high vancomycin minimum inhibitory con- centration: a case-control study. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:51–58. 172. Murray KP, Zhao JJ, Davis SL, Kullar R, Kaye KS, Lephart P, Rybak MJ. Early use of daptomycin versus vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bac- teremia with vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration .1 mg/L: a matched cohort study. Clin Infect Dis 2013;56:1562–1569. 173. Gould IM, Miro JM, Rybak MJ. Daptomycin: the role of high-dose and combination therapy for Gram-positive infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013;42:202–210. 174. Rose WE, Leonard SN, Sakoulas G, Kaatz GW, Zervos MJ, Sheth A, Carpenter CF, Rybak MJ. Daptomycin activity against Staphylococcus aureus following vancomycin exposure in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model with simulated endocardial ve- getations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:831–836. 175. del Rio A, Gasch O, Moreno A, Pena C, Cuquet J, Soy D, Mestres CA, Suarez C, Pare JC, Tubau F, Garcia de la Maria C, Marco F, Carratala J, Gatell JM, Gudiol F, Miro JM. Efficacy and safety of fosfomycin plus imipenem as rescue therapy for complicated bacteremia and endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococ- cus aureus: a multicenter clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:1105–1112. 176. Tattevin P, Boutoille D, Vitrat V, Van Grunderbeeck N, Revest M, Dupont M, Alfandari S, Stahl JP. Salvage treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal endocarditis with ceftaroline: a multicentre observational study. J Antimicrob Che- mother 2014;69:2010–2013. 177. Guignard B, Entenza JM, Moreillon P. Beta-lactams against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2005;5:479–489. 178. Vouillamoz J, Entenza JM, Feger C, Glauser MP, Moreillon P. Quinupristin- dalfopristin combined with beta-lactams for treatment of experimental endocar- ditis due to Staphylococcus aureus constitutively resistant to macrolide- lincosamide-streptogramin B antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44: 1789–1795. 179. Jang HC, Kim SH, Kim KH, Kim CJ, Lee S, Song KH, Jeon JH, Park WB, Kim HB, Park SW, Kim NJ, Kim EC, Oh MD, Choe KW. Salvage treatment for persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: efficacy of linezolid with or without carbapenem. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:395–401. 180. Perichon B, Courvalin P. Synergism between beta-lactams and glycopeptides against VanA-type methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and heterologous expression of the vanA operon. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50: 3622–3630. 181. Chirouze C, Athan E, Alla F, Chu VH, Ralph CG, Selton-Suty C, Erpelding ML, Miro JM, Olaison L, Hoen B. Enterococcal endocarditis in the beginning of the 21st century: analysis from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis- Prospective Cohort Study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013;19:1140–1147. 182. Reynolds R, Potz N, Colman M, Williams A, Livermore D, MacGowan A. Anti- microbial susceptibility of the pathogens of bacteraemia in the UK and Ireland 2001–2002: the BSAC Bacteraemia Resistance Surveillance Programme. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;53:1018–1032. 183. Gavalda J, Len O, Miro JM, Munoz P, Montejo M, Alarcon A, Torre-Cisneros J, Pena C, Martinez-Lacasa X, Sarria C, Bou G, Aguado JM, Navas E, Romeu J, Marco F, Torres C, Tornos P, Planes A, Falco V, Almirante B, Pahissa A. Brief com- munication: treatment of Enterococcus faecalis endocarditis with ampicillin plus ceftriaxone. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:574–579. ESC Guidelines 3121 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 48. 184. Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Almirante B, Gavalda J, Gurgui M, Pena C, de Alarcon A, Ruiz J, Vilacosta I, Montejo M, Vallejo N, Lopez-Medrano F, Plata A, Lopez J, Hidalgo-Tenorio C, Galvez J, Saez C, Lomas JM, Falcone M, de la Torre J, Martinez-Lacasa X, Pahissa A. Ampicillin plus ceftriaxone is as effective as ampicil- lin plus gentamicin for treating Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis. Clin In- fect Dis 2013;56:1261–1268. 185. Pericas JM, Cervera C, del Rio A, Moreno A, Garcia de la Maria C, Almela M, Falces C, Ninot S, Castaneda X, Armero Y, Soy D, Gatell JM, Marco F, Mestres CA, Miro JM. Changes in the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis in Spain in the last 15 years: from ampicillin plus gentamicin to ampi- cillin plus ceftriaxone. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20:O1075–O1083. 186. Olaison L, Schadewitz K. Enterococcal endocarditis in Sweden, 1995–1999: can shorter therapy with aminoglycosides be used? Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:159–166. 187. Miro JM, Pericas JM, del Rio A. A new era for treating Enterococcus faecalis endo- carditis: ampicillin plus short-course gentamicin or ampicillin plus ceftriaxone: that is the question! Circulation 2013;127:1763–1766. 188. Das M, Badley AD, Cockerill FR, Steckelberg JM, Wilson WR. Infective endocar- ditis caused by HACEK microorganisms. Annu Rev Med 1997;48:25–33. 189. Paturel L, Casalta JP, Habib G, Nezri M, Raoult D. Actinobacillus actinomycetemco- mitans endocarditis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2004;10:98–118. 190. Morpeth S, Murdoch D, Cabell CH, Karchmer AW, Pappas P, Levine D, Nacinovich F, Tattevin P, Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Dickerman S, Bouza E, del Rio A, Lejko-Zupanc T, de Oliveira RA, Iarussi D, Klein J, Chirouze C, Bedimo R, Corey GR, Fowler VG Jr. Non-HACEK Gram-negative bacillus endo- carditis. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:829–835. 191. Houpikian P, Raoult D. Blood culture-negative endocarditis in a reference center: etiologic diagnosis of 348 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2005;84:162–173. 192. Tattevin P, Watt G, Revest M, Arvieux C, Fournier PE. Update on blood culture- negative endocarditis. Med Mal Infect 2015;45:1–8. 193. Brouqui P, Raoult D. Endocarditis due to rare and fastidious bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev 2001;14:177–207. 194. Ghigo E, Capo C, Aurouze M, Tung CH, Gorvel JP, Raoult D, Mege JL. Survival of Tropheryma whipplei, the agent of Whipple’s disease, requires phagosome acidifi- cation. Infect Immun 2002;70:1501–1506. 195. Rolain JM, Brouqui P, Koehler JE, Maguina C, Dolan MJ, Raoult D. Recommenda- tions for treatment of human infections caused by Bartonella species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48:1921–1933. 196. Dajani AS, Taubert KA, Wilson W, Bolger AF, Bayer A, Ferrieri P, Gewitz MH, Shulman ST, Nouri S, Newburger JW, Hutto C, Pallasch TJ, Gage TW, Levison ME, Peter G, Zuccaro G Jr. Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Recom- mendations by the American Heart Association. Circulation 1997;96:358–366. 197. Raoult D, Fournier PE, Vandenesch F, Mainardi JL, Eykyn SJ, Nash J, James E, Benoit-Lemercier C, Marrie TJ. Outcome and treatment of Bartonella endocardi- tis. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:226–230. 198. Tattevin P, Revest M, Lefort A, Michelet C, Lortholary O. Fungal endocarditis: cur- rent challenges. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2014;44:290–294. 199. Kalokhe AS, Rouphael N, El Chami MF, Workowski KA, Ganesh G, Jacob JT. As- pergillus endocarditis: a review of the literature. Int J Infect Dis 2010;14: e1040–e1047. 200. Smego RA Jr, Ahmad H. The role of fluconazole in the treatment of Candida endo- carditis: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2011;90:237–249. 201. Lye DC, Hughes A, O’Brien D, Athan E. Candida glabrata prosthetic valve endo- carditis treated successfully with fluconazole plus caspofungin without surgery: a case report and literature review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2005;24:753–755. 202. Lee A, Mirrett S, Reller LB, Weinstein MP. Detection of bloodstream infections in adults: how many blood cultures are needed? J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:3546–3548. 203. Paul M, Zemer-Wassercug N, Talker O, Lishtzinsky Y, Lev B, Samra Z, Leibovici L, Bishara J. Are all beta-lactams similarly effective in the treatment of methicillin- sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia?. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011;17: 1581–1586. 204. Tice AD, Rehm SJ, Dalovisio JR, Bradley JS, Martinelli LP, Graham DR, Gainer RB, Kunkel MJ, Yancey RW, Williams DN. Practice guidelines for outpatient paren- teral antimicrobial therapy. IDSA guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1651–1672. 205. Andrews MM, von Reyn CF. Patient selection criteria and management guidelines for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy for native valve infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:203–209. 206. Cervera C, del Rio A, Garcia L, Sala M, Almela M, Moreno A, Falces C, Mestres CA, Marco F, Robau M, Gatell JM, Miro JM. Efficacy and safety of out- patient parenteral antibiotic therapy for infective endocarditis: a ten-year pro- spective study. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2011;29:587–592. 207. Duncan CJ, Barr DA, Ho A, Sharp E, Semple L, Seaton RA. Risk factors for failure of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) in infective endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013;68:1650–1654. 208. Hasbun R, Vikram HR, Barakat LA, Buenconsejo J, Quagliarello VJ. Complicated left-sided native valve endocarditis in adults: risk classification for mortality. JAMA 2003;289:1933–1940. 209. Aksoy O, Sexton DJ, Wang A, Pappas PA, Kourany W, Chu V, Fowler VG Jr, Woods CW, Engemann JJ, Corey GR, Harding T, Cabell CH. Early surgery in pa- tients with infective endocarditis: a propensity score analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:364–372. 210. Vikram HR, Buenconsejo J, Hasbun R, Quagliarello VJ. Impact of valve surgery on 6-month mortality in adults with complicated, left-sided native valve endocarditis: a propensity analysis. JAMA 2003;290:3207–3214. 211. Di Salvo G, Thuny F, Rosenberg V, Pergola V, Belliard O, Derumeaux G, Cohen A, Iarussi D, Giorgi R, Casalta JP, Caso P, Habib G. Endocarditis in the elderly: clinical, echocardiographic, and prognostic features. Eur Heart J 2003;24:1576–1583. 212. Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Fernandez C, Sarria C, Lopez J, Del Trigo M, Ferrera C, Vivas D, Maroto L, Hernandez M, Rodriguez E, San Roman JA. Comparison of clin- ical features of left-sided infective endocarditis involving previously normal versus previously abnormal valves. Am J Cardiol 2014;114:278–283. 213. Anguera I, Miro JM, Vilacosta I, Almirante B, Anguita M, Munoz P, Roman JA, de Alarcon A, Ripoll T, Navas E, Gonzalez-Juanatey C, Cabell CH, Sarria C, Garcia-Bolao I, Farinas MC, Leta R, Rufi G, Miralles F, Pare C, Evangelista A, Fowler VG Jr, Mestres CA, de Lazzari E, Guma JR. Aorto-cavitary fistulous tract formation in infective endocarditis: clinical and echocardiographic features of 76 cases and risk factors for mortality. Eur Heart J 2005;26:288–297. 214. Piper C, Hetzer R, Korfer R, Bergemann R, Horstkotte D. The importance of sec- ondary mitral valve involvement in primary aortic valve endocarditis; the mitral kissing vegetation. Eur Heart J 2002;23:79–86. 215. Vilacosta I, San Roman JA, Sarria C, Iturralde E, Graupner C, Batlle E, Peral V, Aragoncillo P, Stoermann W. Clinical, anatomic, and echocardiographic charac- teristics of aneurysms of the mitral valve. Am J Cardiol 1999;84:110–113, A9. 216. Kiefer T, Park L, Tribouilloy C, Cortes C, Casillo R, Chu V, Delahaye F, Durante-Mangoni E, Edathodu J, Falces C, Logar M, Miro JM, Naber C, Tripodi MF, Murdoch DR, Moreillon P, Utili R, Wang A. Association between valvular surgery and mortality among patients with infective endocarditis compli- cated by heart failure. JAMA 2011;306:2239–2247. 217. Kahveci G, Bayrak F, Mutlu B, Bitigen A, Karaahmet T, Sonmez K, Izgi A, Degertekin M, Basaran Y. Prognostic value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic pep- tide in patients with active infective endocarditis. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:1429–1433. 218. Purcell JB, Patel M, Khera A, De Lemos JA, Forbess LW, Baker S, Cabell CH, Peterson GE. Relation of troponin elevation to outcome in patients with infective endocarditis. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:1479–1481. 219. Shiue AB, Stancoven AB, Purcell JB, Pinkston K, Wang A, Khera A, De Lemos JA, Peterson GE. Relation of level of B-type natriuretic peptide with outcomes in pa- tients with infective endocarditis. Am J Cardiol 2010;106:1011–1015. 220. Lopez J, Sevilla T, Vilacosta I, Garcia H, Sarria C, Pozo E, Silva J, Revilla A, Varvaro G, del Palacio M, Gomez I, San Roman JA. Clinical significance of congest- ive heart failure in prosthetic valve endocarditis. A multicenter study with 257 patients. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2013;66:384–390. 221. Habib G, Tribouilloy C, Thuny F, Giorgi R, Brahim A, Amazouz M, Remadi JP, Nadji G, Casalta JP, Coviaux F, Avierinos JF, Lescure X, Riberi A, Weiller PJ, Metras D, Raoult D. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: who needs surgery? A multi- centre study of 104 cases. Heart 2005;91:954–959. 222. Hubert S, Thuny F, Resseguier N, Giorgi R, Tribouilloy C, Le Dolley Y, Casalta JP, Riberi A, Chevalier F, Rusinaru D, Malaquin D, Remadi JP, Ammar AB, Avierinos JF, Collart F, Raoult D, Habib G. Prediction of symptomatic embolism in infective endocarditis: construction and validation of a risk calculator in a multicenter co- hort. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1384–1392. 223. Anguera I, Miro JM, Evangelista A, Cabell CH, San Roman JA, Vilacosta I, Almirante B, Ripoll T, Farinas MC, Anguita M, Navas E, Gonzalez-Juanatey C, Garcia-Bolao I, Munoz P, de Alarcon A, Sarria C, Rufi G, Miralles F, Pare C, Fowler VG Jr, Mestres CA, de Lazzari E, Guma JR, Moreno A, Corey GR. Perian- nular complications in infective endocarditis involving native aortic valves. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:1254–1260. 224. Anguera I, Miro JM, San Roman JA, de Alarcon A, Anguita M, Almirante B, Evangelista A, Cabell CH, Vilacosta I, Ripoll T, Munoz P, Navas E, Gonzalez-Juanatey C, Sarria C, Garcia-Bolao I, Farinas MC, Rufi G, Miralles F, Pare C, Fowler VG Jr, Mestres CA, de Lazzari E, Guma JR, del Rio A, Corey GR. Periannular complications in infective endocarditis involving prosthet- ic aortic valves. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:1261–1268. 225. Daniel W, Flaschkampf F. Infective endocarditis. In: Camm A, Luscher T, Serruys P, eds. The ESC textbook of cardiovascular medicine. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. 226. Leung DY, Cranney GB, Hopkins AP, Walsh WF. Role of transoesophageal echo- cardiography in the diagnosis and management of aortic root abscess. Br Heart J 1994;72:175–181. ESC Guidelines3122 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 49. 227. Graupner C, Vilacosta I, San Roman J, Ronderos R, Sarria C, Fernandez C, Mujica R, Sanz O, Sanmartin JV, Pinto AG. Periannular extension of infective endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1204–1211. 228. Lengyel M. The impact of transesophageal echocardiography on the management of prosthetic valve endocarditis: experience of 31 cases and review of the litera- ture. J Heart Valve Dis 1997;6:204–211. 229. Forteza A, Centeno J, Ospina V, Lunar IG, Sanchez V, Perez E, Lopez MJ, Cortina J. Outcomes in aortic and mitral valve replacement with intervalvular fibrous body reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 2015;99:838–845. 230. Chan KL. Early clinical course and long-term outcome of patients with infective endocarditis complicated by perivalvular abscess. CMAJ 2002;167:19–24. 231. Tingleff J, Egeblad H, Gotzsche CO, Baandrup U, Kristensen BO, Pilegaard H, Pettersson G. Perivalvular cavities in endocarditis: abscesses versus pseudoaneur- ysms? A transesophageal Doppler echocardiographic study in 118 patients with endocarditis. Am Heart J 1995;130:93–100. 232. Jenkins NP, Habib G, Prendergast BD. Aorto-cavitary fistulae in infective endocar- ditis: understanding a rare complication through collaboration. Eur Heart J 2005; 26:213–214. 233. Bashore TM, Cabell C, Fowler V Jr. Update on infective endocarditis. Curr Probl Cardiol 2006;31:274–352. 234. Manzano MC, Vilacosta I, San Roman JA, Aragoncillo P, Sarria C, Lopez D, Lopez J, Revilla A, Manchado R, Hernandez R, Rodriguez E. [Acute coronary syndrome in infective endocarditis]. Rev Esp Cardiol 2007;60:24–31. 235. Manne MB, Shrestha NK, Lytle BW, Nowicki ER, Blackstone E, Gordon SM, Pettersson G, Fraser TG. Outcomes after surgical treatment of native and pros- thetic valve infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:489–493. 236. Glazier JJ, Verwilghen J, Donaldson RM, Ross DN. Treatment of complicated prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis with annular abscess formation by homograft aortic root replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:1177–1182. 237. Knosalla C, Weng Y, Yankah AC, Siniawski H, Hofmeister J, Hammerschmidt R, Loebe M, Hetzer R. Surgical treatment of active infective aortic valve endocarditis with associated periannular abscess—11 year results. Eur Heart J 2000;21:490–497. 238. Ellis ME, Al Abdely H, Sandridge A, Greer W, Ventura W. Fungal endocarditis: evi- dence in the world literature, 1965–1995. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32:50–62. 239. Baddley JW, Benjamin DK Jr, Patel M, Miro J, Athan E, Barsic B, Bouza E, Clara L, Elliott T, Kanafani Z, Klein J, Lerakis S, Levine D, Spelman D, Rubinstein E, Tornos P, Morris AJ, Pappas P, Fowler VG Jr, Chu VH, Cabell C. Candida infective endocarditis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2008;27:519–529. 240. Bishara J, Leibovici L, Gartman-Israel D, Sagie A, Kazakov A, Miroshnik E, Ashkenazi S, Pitlik S. Long-term outcome of infective endocarditis: the impact of early surgical intervention. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:1636–1643. 241. Remadi JP, Habib G, Nadji G, Brahim A, Thuny F, Casalta JP, Peltier M, Tribouilloy C. Predictors of death and impact of surgery in Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:1295–1302. 242. Di SalvoG, Habib G, Pergola V, Avierinos JF, Philip E, Casalta JP, Vailloud JM, Derumeaux G, Gouvernet J, Ambrosi P, Lambert M, Ferracci A, Raoult D, Luccioni R. Echocardiography predicts embolic events in infective endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1069–1076. 243. Steckelberg JM, Murphy JG, Ballard D, Bailey K, Tajik AJ, Taliercio CP, Giuliani ER, Wilson WR. Emboli in infective endocarditis: the prognostic value of echocardi- ography. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:635–640. 244. De Castro S, Magni G, Beni S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, Venditti M, Schwartz SL, Fedele F, Pandian NG. Role of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiog- raphy in predicting embolic events in patients with active infective endocarditis involving native cardiac valves. Am J Cardiol 1997;80:1030–1034. 245. Heinle S, Wilderman N, Harrison JK, Waugh R, Bashore T, Nicely LM, Durack D, Kisslo J. Value of transthoracic echocardiography in predicting embolic events in active infective endocarditis. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Cardiol 1994;74: 799–801. 246. Rohmann S, Erbel R, Gorge G, Makowski T, Mohr-Kahaly S, Nixdorff U, Drexler M, Meyer J. Clinical relevance of vegetation localization by transoesopha- geal echocardiography in infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 1992;13:446–452. 247. Erbel R, Liu F, Ge J, Rohmann S, Kupferwasser I. Identification of high-risk sub- groups in infective endocarditis and the role of echocardiography. Eur Heart J 1995;16:588–602. 248. Sanfilippo AJ, Picard MH, Newell JB, Rosas E, Davidoff R, Thomas JD, Weyman AE. Echocardiographic assessment of patients with infectious endocarditis: prediction of risk for complications. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:1191–1199. 249. Mugge A, Daniel WG, Frank G, Lichtlen PR. Echocardiography in infective endo- carditis: reassessment of prognostic implications of vegetation size determined by the transthoracic and the transesophageal approach. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14: 631–638. 250. Dickerman SA, Abrutyn E, Barsic B, Bouza E, Cecchi E, Moreno A, Doco-Lecompte T, Eisen DP, Fortes CQ, Fowler VG Jr, Lerakis S, Miro JM, Pappas P, Peterson GE, Rubinstein E, Sexton DJ, Suter F, Tornos P, Verhagen DW, Cabell CH. The relationship between the initiation of antimicro- bial therapy and the incidence of stroke in infective endocarditis: an analysis from the ICE Prospective Cohort Study (ICE-PCS). Am Heart J 2007;154:1086–1094. 251. Cabell CH, Pond KK, Peterson GE, Durack DT, Corey GR, Anderson DJ, Ryan T, Lukes AS, Sexton DJ. The risk of stroke and death in patients with aortic and mitral valve endocarditis. Am Heart J 2001;142:75–80. 252. Tischler MD, Vaitkus PT. The ability of vegetation size on echocardiography to predict clinical complications: a meta-analysis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1997;10: 562–568. 253. Rohmann S, Erbel R, Darius H, Gorge G, Makowski T, Zotz R, Mohr-Kahaly S, Nixdorff U, Drexler M, Meyer J. Prediction of rapid versus prolonged healing of infective endocarditis by monitoring vegetation size. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1991;4: 465–474. 254. Pergola V, Di Salvo G, Habib G, Avierinos JF, Philip E, Vailloud JM, Thuny F, Casalta JP, Ambrosi P, Lambert M, Riberi A, Ferracci A, Mesana T, Metras D, Harle JR, Weiller PJ, Raoult D, Luccioni R. Comparison of clinical and echocardio- graphic characteristics of Streptococcus bovis endocarditis with that caused by other pathogens. Am J Cardiol 2001;88:871–875. 255. Durante ME, Adinolfi LE, Tripodi MF, Andreana A, Gambardella M, Ragone E, Precone DF, Utili R, Ruggiero G. Risk factors for "major" embolic events in hospi- talized patients with infective endocarditis. Am Heart J 2003;146:311–316. 256. Kupferwasser LI, Hafner G, Mohr-Kahaly S, Erbel R, Meyer J, Darius H. The pres- ence of infection-related antiphospholipid antibodies in infective endocarditis de- termines a major risk factor for embolic events. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33: 1365–1371. 257. Anavekar NS, Tleyjeh IM, Anavekar NS, Mirzoyev Z, Steckelberg JM, Haddad C, Khandaker MH, Wilson WR, Chandrasekaran K, Baddour LM. Impact of prior antiplatelet therapy on risk of embolism in infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:1180–1186. 258. Chan KL, Dumesnil JG, Cujec B, Sanfilippo AJ, Jue J, Turek MA, Robinson TI, Moher D. A randomized trial of aspirin on the risk of embolic events in patients with infective endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:775–780. 259. Heiro M, Nikoskelainen J, Engblom E, Kotilainen E, Marttila R, Kotilainen P. Neuro- logic manifestations of infective endocarditis: a 17-year experience in a teaching hospital in Finland. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:2781–2787. 260. Tleyjeh IM, Steckelberg JM, Georgescu G, Ghomrawi HM, Hoskin TL, Enders FB, Mookadam F, Huskins WC, Wilson WR, Baddour LM. The association between the timing of valve surgery and 6-month mortality in left-sided infective endocar- ditis. Heart 2008;94:892–896. 261. Barsic B, Dickerman S, Krajinovic V, Pappas P, Altclas J, Carosi G, Casabe JH, Chu VH, Delahaye F, Edathodu J, Fortes CQ, Olaison L, Pangercic A, Patel M, Rudez I, Tamin SS, Vincelj J, Bayer AS, Wang A. Influence of the timing of cardiac surgery on the outcome of patients with infective endocarditis and stroke. Clin In- fect Dis 2013;56:209–217. 262. Bannay A, Hoen B, Duval X, Obadia JF, Selton-Suty C, Le MV, Tattevin P, Iung B, Delahaye F, Alla F. The impact of valve surgery on short- and long-term mortality in left-sided infective endocarditis: do differences in methodological approaches explain previous conflicting results? Eur Heart J 2011;32:2003–2015. 263. Ruttmann E, Willeit J, Ulmer H, Chevtchik O, Hofer D, Poewe W, Laufer G, Muller LC. Neurological outcome of septic cardioembolic stroke after infective endocarditis. Stroke 2006;37:2094–2099. 264. Yoshioka D, Sakaguchi T, Yamauchi T, Okazaki S, Miyagawa S, Nishi H, Yoshikawa Y, Fukushima S, Saito S, Sawa Y. Impact of early surgical treatment on postoperative neurologic outcome for active infective endocarditis compli- cated by cerebral infarction. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;94:489–495. 265. Eishi K, Kawazoe K, Kuriyama Y, Kitoh Y, Kawashima Y, Omae T. Surgical manage- ment of infective endocarditis associated with cerebral complications. Multi- center retrospective study in Japan. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995;110:1745–1755. 266. Wilbring M, Irmscher L, Alexiou K, Matschke K, Tugtekin SM. The impact of pre- operative neurological events in patients suffering from native infective valve endocarditis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014;18:740–747. 267. Hui FK, Bain M, Obuchowski NA, Gordon S, Spiotta AM, Moskowitz S, Toth G, Hussain S. Mycotic aneurysm detection rates with cerebral angiography in pa- tients with infective endocarditis. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:449–452. 268. Ducruet AF, Hickman ZL, Zacharia BE, Narula R, Grobelny BT, Gorski J, Connolly ES Jr. Intracranial infectious aneurysms: a comprehensive review. Neuro- surg Rev 2010;33:37–46. 269. Peters PJ, Harrison T, Lennox JL. A dangerous dilemma: management of infectious intracranial aneurysms complicating endocarditis. Lancet Infect Dis 2006;6: 742–748. 270. Corr P, Wright M, Handler LC. Endocarditis-related cerebral aneurysms: radio- logic changes with treatment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1995;16:745–748. 271. White PM, Teasdale EM, Wardlaw JM, Easton V. Intracranial aneurysms: CT angi- ography and MR angiography for detection prospective blinded comparison in a large patient cohort. Radiology 2001;219:739–749. ESC Guidelines 3123 byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 50. 272. Gonzalez I, Sarria C, Lopez J, Vilacosta I, San Roman A, Olmos C, Saez C, Revilla A, Hernandez M, Caniego JL, Fernandez C. Symptomatic peripheral mycotic aneur- ysms due to infective endocarditis: a contemporary profile. Medicine (Baltimore) 2014;93:42–52. 273. Bonfiglioli R, Nanni C, Morigi JJ, Graziosi M, Trapani F, Bartoletti M, Tumietto F, Ambrosini V, Ferretti A, Rubello D, Rapezzi C, Viale PL, Fanti S. 18 F-FDG PET/CT diagnosis of unexpected extracardiac septic embolisms in patients with suspected cardiac endocarditis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:1190–1196. 274. Akhyari P, Mehrabi A, Adhiwana A, Kamiya H, Nimptsch K, Minol JP, Tochtermann U, Godehardt E, Weitz J, Lichtenberg A, Karck M, Ruhparwar A. Is simultaneous splenectomy an additive risk factor in surgical treatment for active endocarditis? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2012;397:1261–1266. 275. Chou YH, Hsu CC, Tiu CM, Chang T. Splenic abscess: sonographic diagnosis and percutaneous drainage or aspiration. Gastrointest Radiol 1992;17:262–266. 276. Katz LH, Pitlik S, Porat E, Biderman P, Bishara J. Pericarditis as a presenting sign of infective endocarditis: two case reports and review of the literature. Scand J Infect Dis 2008;40:785–791. 277. Regueiro A, Falces C, Cervera C, del Rio A, Pare JC, Mestres CA, Castaneda X, Pericas JM, Azqueta M, Marco F, Ninot S, Almela M, Moreno A, Miro JM. Risk fac- tors for pericardial effusion in native valve infective endocarditis and its influence on outcome. Am J Cardiol 2013;112:1646–1651. 278. DiNubile MJ, Calderwood SB, Steinhaus DM, Karchmer AW. Cardiac conduction abnormalities complicating native valve active infective endocarditis. Am J Cardiol 1986;58:1213–1217. 279. Ryu HM, Bae MH, Lee SH, Lee JH, Lee JH, Kwon YS, Yang DH, Park HS, Cho Y, Chae SC, Jun JE, Park WH. Presence of conduction abnormalities as a predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with infective endocarditis. Heart Vessels 2011;26: 298–305. 280. Kitkungvan D, Denktas AE. Cardiac arrest and ventricular tachycardia from cor- onary embolism: an unusual presentation of infective endocarditis. Anadolu Kar- diyol Derg 2014;14:204–205. 281. Eisinger AJ. Atrial fibrillation in bacterial endocarditis. Br Heart J 1971;33:739–741. 282. Gonzalez-Juanatey C, Gonzalez-Gay MA, Llorca J, Crespo F, Garcia-Porrua C, Corredoira J, Vidan J, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR. Rheumatic manifestations of infective endocarditis in non-addicts. A 12-year study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2001;80:9–19. 283. Pigrau C, Almirante B, Flores X, Falco V, Rodriguez D, Gasser I, Villanueva C, Pahissa A. Spontaneous pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis and endocarditis: inci- dence, risk factors, and outcome. Am J Med 2005;118:1287. 284. Bojalil R, Mazon-Gonzalez B, Carrillo-Cordova JR, Springall R, Amezcua- Guerra LM. Frequency and clinical significance of a variety of autoantibodies in patients with definite infective endocarditis. J Clin Rheumatol 2012;18:67–70. 285. Ying CM, Yao DT, Ding HH, Yang CD. Infective endocarditis with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody: report of 13 cases and literature review. PLoS One 2014;9: e89777. 286. Nunes MC, Gelape CL, Ferrari TC. Profile of infective endocarditis at a tertiary care center in Brazil during a seven-year period: prognostic factors and in-hospital outcome. Int J Infect Dis 2010;14:e394–e398. 287. Tamura K. Clinical characteristics of infective endocarditis with vertebral osteo- myelitis. J Infect Chemother 2010;16:260–265. 288. Koslow M, Kuperstein R, Eshed I, Perelman M, Maor E, Sidi Y. The unique clinical features and outcome of infectious endocarditis and vertebral osteomyelitis co- infection. Am J Med 2014;127:669.e9–669.e15. 289. Ojeda J, Lopez-Lopez L, Gonzalez A, Vila LM. Infective endocarditis initially pre- senting with a dermatomyositis-like syndrome. BMJ Case Rep 2014 Jan 10;2014. pii: bcr2013200865. doi:10.1136/bcr-2013-200865. 290. Vind SH, Hess S. Possible role of PET/CT in infective endocarditis. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:516–519. 291. Ferraris L, Milazzo L, Ricaboni D, Mazzali C, Orlando G, Rizzardini G, Cicardi M, Raimondi F, Tocalli L, Cialfi A, Vanelli P, Galli M, Antona C, Antinori S. Profile of infective endocarditis observed from 2. BMC Infect Dis 2013;13:545. 292. Le V, Gill S. Serious complications after infective endocarditis. Dan Med Bull 2010; 57:A4192. 293. Tamura K, Arai H, Yoshizaki T. Long-term outcome of active infective endocardi- tis with renal insufficiency in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;18: 216–221. 294. Conlon PJ, Jefferies F, Krigman HR, Corey GR, Sexton DJ, Abramson MA. Predic- tors of prognosis and risk of acute renal failure in bacterial endocarditis. Clin Ne- phrol 1998;49:96–101. 295. Majumdar A, Chowdhary S, Ferreira MA, Hammond LA, Howie AJ, Lipkin GW, Littler WA. Renal pathological findings in infective endocarditis. Nephrol Dial Trans- plant 2000;15:1782–1787. 296. Colen TW, Gunn M, Cook E, Dubinsky T. Radiologic manifestations of extra- cardiac complications of infective endocarditis. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2433–2445. 297. Mahr A, Batteux F, Tubiana S, Goulvestre C, Wolff M, Papo T, Vrtovsnik F, Klein I, Iung B, Duval X. Brief report: prevalence of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in infective endocarditis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66:1672–1677. 298. Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD, Nilsson J, Smith C, Goldstone AR, Lockowandt U. EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:734–744. 299. Gaca JG, Sheng S, Daneshmand MA, O’Brien S, Rankin JS, Brennan JM, Hughes GC, Glower DD, Gammie JS, Smith PK. Outcomes for endocarditis surgery in North America: a simplified risk scoring system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;141: 98–106. 300. De Feo M, Cotrufo M, Carozza A, De Santo LS, Amendolara F, Giordano S, Della Ratta EE, Nappi G, Della CA. The need for a specific risk prediction system in na- tive valve infective endocarditis surgery. ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:307571. 301. Wang J, Liu H, Sun J, Xue H, Xie L, Yu S, Liang C, Han X, Guan Z, Wei L, Yuan C, Zhao X, Chen H. Varying correlation between 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in carotid atheroscler- osis: implications for plaque inflammation. Stroke 2014;45:1842–1845. 302. de Kerchove L, Vanoverschelde JL, Poncelet A, Glineur D, Rubay J, Zech F, Noirhomme P, El Khoury G. Reconstructive surgery in active mitral valve endo- carditis: feasibility, safety and durability. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;31:592–599. 303. de Kerchove L, Price J, Tamer S, Glineur D, Momeni M, Noirhomme P, El Khoury G. Extending the scope of mitral valve repair in active endocarditis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;143(Suppl):S91–S95. 304. Meszaros K, Nujic S, Sodeck GH, Englberger L, Konig T, Schonhoff F, Reineke D, Roost-Krahenbuhl E, Schmidli J, Czerny M, Carrel TP. Long-term results after op- erations for active infective endocarditis in native and prosthetic valves. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;94:1204–1210. 305. Edwards MB, Ratnatunga CP, Dore CJ, Taylor KM. Thirty-day mortality and long- term survival following surgery for prosthetic endocarditis: a study from the UK heart valve registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1998;14:156–164. 306. Dreyfus G, Serraf A, Jebara VA, Deloche A, Chauvaud S, Couetil JP, Carpentier A. Valve repair in acute endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;49:706–711. 307. Shang E, Forrest GN, Chizmar T, Chim J, Brown JM, Zhan M, Zoarski GH, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Mitral valve infective endocarditis: benefit of early oper- ation and aggressive use of repair. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1728–1733. 308. David TE, Regesta T, Gavra G, Armstrong S, Maganti MD. Surgical treatment of paravalvular abscess: long-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;31:43–48. 309. Nataf P, Jault F, Dorent R, Vaissier E, Bors V, Pavie A, Cabrol C, Gandjbakhch I. Extra-annular procedures in the surgical management of prosthetic valve endo- carditis. Eur Heart J 1995;16(Suppl B):99–102. 310. Vistarini N, d’Alessandro C, Aubert S, Jault F, Acar C, Pavie A, Gandjbakhch I. Sur- gery for infective endocarditis on mitral annulus calcification. J Heart Valve Dis 2007;16:611–616. 311. Ali M, Iung B, Lansac E, Bruneval P, Acar C. Homograft replacement of the mitral valve: eight-year results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;128:529–534. 312. Kabbani S, Jamil H, Nabhani F, Hamoud A, Katan K, Sabbagh N, Koudsi A, Kabbani L, Hamed G. Analysis of 92 mitral pulmonary autograft replacement (Ross II) operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;134:902–908. 313. David TE. Aortic valve repair for active infective endocarditis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;42:127–128. 314. Mayer K, Aicher D, Feldner S, Kunihara T, Schafers HJ. Repair versus replacement of the aortic valve in active infective endocarditis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;42: 122–127. 315. Lopes S, Calvinho P, de Oliveira F, Antunes M. Allograft aortic root replacement in complex prosthetic endocarditis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;32:126–130. 316. Musci M, Weng Y, Hubler M, Amiri A, Pasic M, Kosky S, Stein J, Siniawski H, Hetzer R. Homograft aortic root replacement in native or prosthetic active infect- ive endocarditis: twenty-year single-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;139:665–673. 317. Klieverik LM, Yacoub MH, Edwards S, Bekkers JA, Roos-Hesselink JW, Kappetein AP, Takkenberg JJ, Bogers AJ. Surgical treatment of active native aortic valve endocarditis with allografts and mechanical prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:1814–1821. 318. Avierinos JF, Thuny F, Chalvignac V, Giorgi R, Tafanelli L, Casalta JP, Raoult D, Mesana T, Collart F, Metras D, Habib G, Riberi A. Surgical treatment of active aor- tic endocarditis: homografts are not the cornerstone of outcome. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:1935–1942. 319. Takkenberg JJ, Klieverik LM, Bekkers JA, Kappetein AP, Roos JW, Eijkemans MJ, Bogers AJ. Allografts for aortic valve or root replacement: insights from an 18-year single-center prospective follow-up study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007; 31:851–859. 320. Obadia JF, Henaine R, Bergerot C, Ginon I, Nataf P, Chavanis N, Robin J, Andre-Fouet X, Ninet J, Raisky O. Monobloc aorto-mitral homograft or mechan- ical valve replacement: a new surgical option for extensive bivalvular endocarditis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:243–245. ESC Guidelines3123a byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 51. 321. Prat A, Fabre OH, Vincentelli A, Doisy V, Shaaban G. Ross operation and mitral homograft for aortic and tricuspid valve endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;65: 1450–1452. 322. Schmidtke C, Dahmen G, Sievers HH. Subcoronary Ross procedure in patients with active endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:36–39. 323. Aymami M, Revest M, Piau C, Chabanne C, Le Gall F, Lelong B, Verhoye JP, Michelet C, Tattevin P, Flecher E. Heart transplantation as salvage treatment of intractable infective endocarditis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:371.e1–371.e4. 324. Butchart EG, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Antunes MJ, Tornos P, De Caterina R, Cormier B, Prendergast B, Iung B, Bjornstad H, Leport C, Hall RJ, Vahanian A. Re- commendations for the management of patients after heart valve surgery. Eur Heart J 26:2463–2471. 325. David TE, Gavra G, Feindel CM, Regesta T, Armstrong S, Maganti MD. Surgical treatment of active infective endocarditis: a continued challenge. J Thorac Cardio- vasc Surg 2007;133:144–149. 326. Heiro M, Helenius H, Hurme S, Savunen T, Metsarinne K, Engblom E, Nikoskelainen J, Kotilainen P. Long-term outcome of infective endocarditis: a study on patients surviving over one year after the initial episode treated in a Finn- ish teaching hospital during 25 years. BMC Infect Dis 2008;8:49. 327. Martinez-Selles M, Munoz P, Estevez A, del Castillo R, Garcia-Fernandez MA, Rodriguez-Creixems M, Moreno M, Bouza E. Long-term outcome of infective endocarditis in non-intravenous drug users. Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83:1213–1217. 328. Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Almirante B, Tornos P, Gonzalez-Alujas MT, Planes AM, Galinanes M, Pahissa A. Immediate and long-term outcome of left-sided infective endocarditis. A 12-year prospective study from a contemporary cohort in a refer- ral hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012;18:E522–E530. 329. Ternhag A, Cederstrom A, Torner A, Westling K. A nationwide cohort study of mortality risk and long-term prognosis in infective endocarditis in Sweden. PLoS One 2013;8:e67519. 330. Mokhles MM, Ciampichetti I, Head SJ, Takkenberg JJ, Bogers AJ. Survival of surgi- cally treated infective endocarditis: a comparison with the general Dutch popula- tion. Ann Thorac Surg 2011;91:1407–1412. 331. Fedoruk LM, Jamieson WR, Ling H, MacNab JS, Germann E, Karim SS, Lichtenstein SV. Predictors of recurrence and reoperation for prosthetic valve endocarditis after valve replacement surgery for native valve endocarditis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;137:326–333. 332. Alagna L, Park LP, Nicholson BP, Keiger AJ, Strahilevitz J, Morris A, Wray D, Gordon D, Delahaye F, Edathodu J, Miro JM, Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Nacinovich FM, Shahid R, Woods CW, Joyce MJ, Sexton DJ, Chu VH. Repeat endocarditis: analysis of risk factors based on the International Collaboration on Endocarditis – Prospective Cohort Study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20: 566–575. 333. Kaiser SP, Melby SJ, Zierer A, Schuessler RB, Moon MR, Moazami N, Pasque MK, Huddleston C, Damiano RJ Jr, Lawton JS. Long-term outcomes in valve replace- ment surgery for infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:30–35. 334. Heiro M, Helenius H, Makila S, Hohenthal U, Savunen T, Engblom E, Nikoskelainen J, Kotilainen P. Infective endocarditis in a Finnish teaching hospital: a study on 326 episodes treated during 1980–2004. Heart 2006;92:1457–1462. 335. Sabik JF, Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Marullo AG, Pettersson GB, Cosgrove DM. Aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allograft for prosthetic valve endo- carditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:650–659. 336. Hagl C, Galla JD, Lansman SL, Fink D, Bodian CA, Spielvogel D, Griepp RB. Re- placing the ascending aorta and aortic valve for acute prosthetic valve endocardi- tis: is using prosthetic material contraindicated? Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74: S1781–S1785. 337. Chambers JB, Ray S, Prendergast B, Taggart D, Westaby S, Grothier L, Arden C, Wilson J, Campbell B, Sandoe J, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Mestres CA, Rosenhek R, Otto C. Specialist valve clinics: recommendations from the British Heart Valve So- ciety working group on improving quality in the delivery of care for patients with heart valve disease. Heart 2013;99:1714–1716. 338. Vongpatanasin W, Hillis LD, Lange RA. Prosthetic heart valves. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:407–416. 339. Moreillon P, Que YA. Infective endocarditis. Lancet 2004;363:139–149. 340. Wang A, Athan E, Pappas PA, Fowler VG Jr, Olaison L, Pare C, Almirante B, Munoz P, Rizzi M, Naber C, Logar M, Tattevin P, Iarussi DL, Selton-Suty C, Jones SB, Casabe J, Morris A, Corey GR, Cabell CH. Contemporary clinical profile and outcome of prosthetic valve endocarditis. JAMA 2007;297:1354–1361. 341. Habib G, Thuny F, Avierinos JF. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: current approach and therapeutic options. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2008;50:274–281. 342. Lopez J, Revilla A, Vilacosta I, Villacorta E, Gonzalez-Juanatey C, Gomez I, Rollan MJ, San Roman JA. Definition, clinical profile, microbiological spectrum, and prognostic factors of early-onset prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur Heart J 2007;28:760–765. 343. Piper C, Korfer R, Horstkotte D. Prosthetic valve endocarditis. Heart 2001;85: 590–593. 344. Mahesh B, Angelini G, Caputo M, Jin XY, Bryan A. Prosthetic valve endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:1151–1158. 345. Amat-Santos IJ, Messika-Zeitoun D, Eltchaninoff H, Kapadia S, Lerakis S, Cheema A, Gutierrez-Ibanes E, Munoz-Garcia A, Pan M, Webb JG, Herrmann H, Kodali S, Nombela-Franco L, Tamburino C, Jilaihawi H, Masson JB, Sandoli dB, Ferreira MC, Correa LV, Mangione JA, Iung B, Durand E, Vahanian A, Tuzcu M, Hayek SS, Angulo-Llanos R, Gomez-Doblas JJ, Castillo JC, Dvir D, Leon MB, Garcia E, Cobiella J, Vilacosta I, Barbanti M, Makkar R, Barbosa RH, Urena M, Dumont E, Pibarot P, Lopez J, San Roman A, Rodes-Cabau J. Infective endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from a large multicenter registry. Circulation 2015;131:1566–1574. 346. Pericas JM, Llopis J, Cervera C, Sacanella E, Falces C, Andrea R, Garcia de la Maria C, Ninot S, Vidal B, Almela M, Pare JC, Sabate M, Moreno A, Marco F, Mestres CA, Miro JM. Infective endocarditis in patients with an implanted trans- catheter aortic valve: Clinical characteristics and outcome of a new entity. J Infect 2015;70:565–576. 347. Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocar- ditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Med 1994;96:200–209. 348. Lamas CC, Eykyn SJ. Suggested modifications to the Duke criteria for the clinical diagnosis of native valve and prosthetic valve endocarditis: analysis of 118 patho- logically proven cases. Clin Infect Dis 1997;25:713–719. 349. Perez-Vazquez A, Farinas MC, Garcia-Palomo JD, Bernal JM, Revuelta JM, Gonzalez-Macias J. Evaluation of the Duke criteria in 93 episodes of prosthetic valve endocarditis: could sensitivity be improved? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1185–1191. 350. Tornos P, Almirante B, Olona M, Permanyer G, Gonzalez T, Carballo J, Pahissa A, Soler-Soler J. Clinical outcome and long-term prognosis of late prosthetic valve endocarditis: a 20-year experience. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:381–386. 351. Akowuah EF, Davies W, Oliver S, Stephens J, Riaz I, Zadik P, Cooper G. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: early and late outcome following medical or surgical treat- ment. Heart 2003;89:269–272. 352. John MD, Hibberd PL, Karchmer AW, Sleeper LA, Calderwood SB. Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic valve endocarditis: optimal management and risk factors for death. Clin Infect Dis 1998;26:1302–1309. 353. Wolff M, Witchitz S, Chastang C, Regnier B, Vachon F. Prosthetic valve endocar- ditis in the ICU. Prognostic factors of overall survival in a series of 122 cases and con- sequences for treatment decision. Chest 1995;108:688–694. 354. Gordon SM, Serkey JM, Longworth DL, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM III. Early onset prosthetic valve endocarditis: the Cleveland Clinic experience 1992–1997. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:1388–1392. 355. Sohail MR, Martin KR, Wilson WR, Baddour LM, Harmsen WS, Steckelberg JM. Medical versus surgical management of Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic valve endocarditis. Am J Med 2006;119:147–154. 356. Wang A, Pappas P, Anstrom KJ, Abrutyn E, Fowler VG Jr, Hoen B, Miro JM, Corey GR, Olaison L, Stafford JA, Mestres CA, Cabell CH. The use and effect of surgical therapy for prosthetic valve infective endocarditis: a propensity analysis of a multicenter, international cohort. Am Heart J 2005;150:1086–1091. 357. Truninger K, AttenhoferJost CH, Seifert B, Vogt PR, Follath F, Schaffner A, Jenni R. Long term follow up of prosthetic valve endocarditis: what characteristics identify patients who were treated successfully with antibiotics alone? Heart 1999;82: 714–720. 358. Hill EE, Herregods MC, Vanderschueren S, Claus P, Peetermans WE, Herijgers P. Management of prosthetic valve infective endocarditis. Am J Cardiol 2008;101: 1174–1178. 359. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O’Gara PT, O’Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS. 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a re- port of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the So- ciety of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiog- raphy and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:e523–e661. 360. Rundstrom H, Kennergren C, Andersson R, Alestig K, Hogevik H. Pacemaker endocarditis during 18 years in Goteborg. Scand J Infect Dis 2004;36:674–679. 361. Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, Ochoa JA, Frisch DR, Ho RT, Pavri BB, Kurtz SM. 16-year trends in the infection burden for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the United States 1993 to 2008. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:1001–1006. 362. Baddour LM, Epstein AE, Erickson CC, Knight BP, Levison ME, Lockhart PB, Masoudi FA, Okum EJ, Wilson WR, Beerman LB, Bolger AF, Estes NA III, Gewitz M, Newburger JW, Schron EB, Taubert KA. Update on cardiovascular im- plantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific state- ment from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010;121:458–477. ESC Guidelines 3123b byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 52. 363. Baddour LM, Bettmann MA, Bolger AF, Epstein AE, Ferrieri P, Gerber MA, Gewitz MH, Jacobs AK, Levison ME, Newburger JW, Pallasch TJ, Wilson WR, Baltimore RS, Falace DA, Shulman ST, Tani LY, Taubert KA. Nonvalvular cardio- vascular device-related infections. Circulation 2003;108:2015–2031. 364. Uslan DZ, Sohail MR, St Sauver JL, Friedman PA, Hayes DL, Stoner SM, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Baddour LM. Permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:669–675. 365. Nof E, Epstein LM. Complications of cardiac implants: handling device infections. Eur Heart J 2013;34:229–236. 366. Sohail MR, Uslan DZ, Khan AH, Friedman PA, Hayes DL, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Stoner S, Baddour LM. Management and outcome of permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infections. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1851–1859. 367. Klug D, Balde M, Pavin D, Hidden-Lucet F, Clementy J, Sadoul N, Rey JL, Lande G, Lazarus A, Victor J, Barnay C, Grandbastien B, Kacet S. Risk factors related to in- fections of implanted pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators: results of a large prospective study. Circulation 2007;116:1349–1355. 368. Sohail MR, Uslan DZ, Khan AH, Friedman PA, Hayes DL, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Stoner SM, Baddour LM. Risk factor analysis of permanent pace- maker infection. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:166–173. 369. Bloom H, Heeke B, Leon A, Mera F, Delurgio D, Beshai J, Langberg J. Renal insuf- ficiency and the risk of infection from pacemaker or defibrillator surgery. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:142–145. 370. Lekkerkerker JC, van Nieuwkoop C, Trines SA, van der Bom JG, Bernards A, van de Velde ET, Bootsma M, Zeppenfeld K, Jukema JW, Borleffs JW, Schalij MJ, van Erven L. Risk factors and time delay associated with cardiac device infections: Lei- den device registry. Heart 2009;95:715–720. 371. Johansen J, Nielsen J, Arnsbo P, Moller M, Pedersen A, Mortensen P. Higher inci- dence of pacemaker infection after replacement than after implantation: experi- ences from 36,076 consecutive patients. 2006. p. 102–103. 372. Gould PA, Krahn AD. Complications associated with implantable cardioverter- defibrillator replacement in response to device advisories. JAMA 2006;295: 1907–1911. 373. Da Costa A, Kirkorian G, Cucherat M, Delahaye F, Chevalier P, Cerisier A, Isaaz K, Touboul P. Antibiotic prophylaxis for permanent pacemaker implantation: a meta-analysis. Circulation 1998;97:1796–1801. 374. Al Khatib SM, Lucas FL, Jollis JG, Malenka DJ, Wennberg DE. The relation between patients’ outcomes and the volume of cardioverter-defibrillator implantation pro- cedures performed by physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:1536–1540. 375. Villamil CI, Rodriguez FM, Van den Eynde CA, Jose V, Canedo RC. Permanent transvenous pacemaker infections: An analysis of 59 cases. Eur J Intern Med 2007;18:484–488. 376. Bongiorni MG, Tascini C, Tagliaferri E, Di Cori A, Soldati E, Leonildi A, Zucchelli G, Ciullo I, Menichetti F. Microbiology of cardiac implantable electronic device infections. Europace 2012;14:1334–1339. 377. Tarakji KG, Chan EJ, Cantillon DJ, Doonan AL, Hu T, Schmitt S, Fraser TG, Kim A, Gordon SM, Wilkoff BL. Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: presen- tation, management, and patient outcomes. Heart Rhythm 2010;7:1043–1047. 378. Archer GL, Climo MW. Antimicrobial susceptibility of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994;38:2231–2237. 379. Abraham J, Mansour C, Veledar E, Khan B, Lerakis S. Staphylococcus aureus bacter- emia and endocarditis: the Grady Memorial Hospital experience with methicillin- sensitive S aureus and methicillin-resistant S aureus bacteremia. Am Heart J 2004; 147:536–539. 380. del Rio A, Anguera I, Miro JM, Mont L, Fowler VG Jr, Azqueta M, Mestres CA. Sur- gical treatment of pacemaker and defibrillator lead endocarditis: the impact of electrode lead extraction on outcome. Chest 2003;124:1451–1459. 381. Cacoub P, Leprince P, Nataf P, Hausfater P, Dorent R, Wechsler B, Bors V, Pavie A, Piette JC, Gandjbakhch I. Pacemaker infective endocarditis. Am J Cardiol 1998;82: 480–484. 382. Klug D, Lacroix D, Savoye C, Goullard L, Grandmougin D, Hennequin JL, Kacet S, Lekieffre J. Systemic infection related to endocarditis on pacemaker leads: clinical presentation and management. Circulation 1997;95:2098–2107. 383. Vilacosta I, Sarria C, San Roman JA, Jimenez J, Castillo JA, Iturralde E, Rollan MJ, Martinez EL. Usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography for diagnosis of in- fected transvenous permanent pacemakers. Circulation 1994;89:2684–2687. 384. Victor F, de Place C, Camus C, Le Breton H, Leclercq C, Pavin D, Mabo P, Daubert C. Pacemaker lead infection: echocardiographic features, management, and outcome. Heart 1999;81:82–87. 385. Golzio PG, Fanelli AL, Vinci M, Pelissero E, Morello M, Grosso MW, Gaita F. Lead vegetations in patients with local and systemic cardiac device infections: preva- lence, risk factors, and therapeutic effects. Europace 2013;15:89–100. 386. Bongiorni MG, Di Cori A, Soldati E, Zucchelli G, Arena G, Segreti L, De Lucia R, Marzilli M. Intracardiac echocardiography in patients with pacing and defibrillating leads: a feasibility study. Echocardiography 2008;25:632–638. 387. Narducci ML, Pelargonio G, Russo E, Marinaccio L, Di Monaco A, Perna F, Bencardino G, Casella M, Di Biase L, Santangeli P, Palmieri R, Lauria C, Al Mohani G, Di Clemente F, Tondo C, Pennestri F, Ierardi C, Rebuzzi AG, Crea F, Bellocci F, Natale A, Dello RA. Usefulness of intracardiac echocardiog- raphy for the diagnosis of cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1398–1405. 388. Dalal A, Asirvatham SJ, Chandrasekaran K, Seward JB, Tajik AJ. Intracardiac echo- cardiography in the detection of pacemaker lead endocarditis. J Am Soc Echocar- diogr 2002;15:1027–1028. 389. Erba PA, Sollini M, Conti U, Bandera F, Tascini C, De Tommasi SM, Zucchelli G, Doria R, Menichetti F, Bongiorni MG, Lazzeri E, Mariani G. Radiolabeled WBC scintigraphy in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected device-related infections. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:1075–1086. 390. Ploux S, Riviere A, Amraoui S, Whinnett Z, Barandon L, Lafitte S, Ritter P, Papaioannou G, Clementy J, Jais P, Bordenave L, Haissaguerre M, Bordachar P. Positron emission tomography in patients with suspected pacing system infec- tions may play a critical role in difficult cases. Heart Rhythm 2011;8:1478–1481. 391. Sohail MR, Uslan DZ, Khan AH, Friedman PA, Hayes DL, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Jenkins SM, Baddour LM. Infective endocarditis complicating per- manent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infection. Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83:46–53. 392. Jan E, Camou F, Texier-Maugein J, Whinnett Z, Caubet O, Ploux S, Pellegrin JL, Ritter P, Metayer PL, Roudaut R, Haissaguerre M, Bordachar P. Microbiologic characteristics and in vitro susceptibility to antimicrobials in a large population of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2012;23:375–381. 393. Tumbarello M, Pelargonio G, Trecarichi EM, Narducci ML, Fiori B, Bellocci F, Spanu T. High-dose daptomycin for cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis caused by staphylococcal small-colony variants. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1516–1517. 394. Tascini C, Bongiorni MG, Di Cori A, Di Paolo A, Polidori M, Tagliaferri E, Fondelli S, Soldati E, Ciullo I, Leonildi A, Danesi R, Coluccia G, Menichetti F. Car- diovascular implantable electronic device endocarditis treated with daptomycin with or without transvenous removal. Heart Lung 2012;41:e24–e30. 395. Durante-Mangoni E, Casillo R, Bernardo M, Caianiello C, Mattucci I, Pinto D, Agrusta F, Caprioli R, Albisinni R, Ragone E, Utili R. High-dose daptomycin for car- diac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:347–354. 396. Wilkoff BL, Love CJ, Byrd CL, Bongiorni MG, Carrillo RG, Crossley GH III, Epstein LM, Friedman RA, Kennergren CE, Mitkowski P, Schaerf RH, Wazni OM. Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consen- sus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: this document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA). Heart Rhythm 2009;6: 1085–1104. 397. Pichlmaier M, Knigina L, Kutschka I, Bara C, Oswald H, Klein G, Bisdas T, Haverich A. Complete removal as a routine treatment for any cardiovascular im- plantable electronic device-associated infection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142:1482–1490. 398. Grammes JA, Schulze CM, Al Bataineh M, Yesenosky GA, Saari CS, Vrabel MJ, Horrow J, Chowdhury M, Fontaine JM, Kutalek SP. Percutaneous pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction in 100 patients with in- tracardiac vegetations defined by transesophageal echocardiogram. J Am Coll Car- diol 2010;55:886–894. 399. Maytin M, Jones SO, Epstein LM. Long-term mortality after transvenous lead ex- traction. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2012;5:252–257. 400. Di Cori A, Bongiorni MG, Zucchelli G, Segreti L, Viani S, Paperini L, Soldati E. Transvenous extraction performance of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene cov- ered ICD leads in comparison to traditional ICD leads in humans. Pacing Clin Elec- trophysiol 2010;33:1376–1381. 401. Di Cori A, Bongiorni MG, Zucchelli G, Segreti L, Viani S, De Lucia R, Paperini L, Soldati E. Large, single-center experience in transvenous coronary sinus lead ex- traction: procedural outcomes and predictors for mechanical dilatation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2012;35:215–222. 402. Maytin M, Carrillo RG, Baltodano P, Schaerf RH, Bongiorni MG, Di Cori A, Curnis A, Cooper JM, Kennergren C, Epstein LM. Multicenter experience with transvenous lead extraction of active fixation coronary sinus leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2012;35:641–647. 403. Deharo JC, Bongiorni MG, Rozkovec A, Bracke F, Defaye P, Fernandez-Lozano I, Golzio PG, Hansky B, Kennergren C, Manolis AS, Mitkowski P, Platou ES. Path- ways for training and accreditation for transvenous lead extraction: a European Heart Rhythm Association position paper. Europace 2012;14:124–134. ESC Guidelines3123c byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 53. 404. Meier-Ewert HK, Gray ME, John RM. Endocardial pacemaker or defibrillator leads with infected vegetations: a single-center experience and consequences of trans- venous extraction. Am Heart J 2003;146:339–344. 405. Ruttmann E, Hangler HB, Kilo J, Hofer D, Muller LC, Hintringer F, Muller S, Laufer G, Antretter H. Transvenous pacemaker lead removal is safe and effective even in large vegetations: an analysis of 53 cases of pacemaker lead endocarditis. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:231–236. 406. Gaynor SL, Zierer A, Lawton JS, Gleva MJ, Damiano RJ Jr., Moon MR. Laser assist- ance for extraction of chronically implanted endocardial leads: infectious versus noninfectious indications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:1352–1358. 407. Braun MU, Rauwolf T, Bock M, Kappert U, Boscheri A, Schnabel A, Strasser RH. Percutaneous lead implantation connected to an external device in stimulation- dependent patients with systemic infection—a prospective and controlled study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:875–879. 408. Kornberger A, Schmid E, Kalender G, Stock UA, Doernberger V, Khalil M, Lisy M. Bridge to recovery or permanent system implantation: an eight-year single-center experience in transvenous semipermanent pacing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2013; 36:1096–1103. 409. Kawata H, Pretorius V, Phan H, Mulpuru S, Gadiyaram V, Patel J, Steltzner D, Krummen D, Feld G, Birgersdotter-Green U. Utility and safety of temporary pa- cing using active fixation leads and externalized re-usable permanent pacemakers after lead extraction. Europace 2013;15:1287–1291. 410. Pecha S, Aydin MA, Yildirim Y, Sill B, Reiter B, Wilke I, Reichenspurner H, Treede H. Transcutaneous lead implantation connected to an externalized pace- maker in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator/pacemaker infection and pacemaker dependency. Europace 2013;15:1205–1209. 411. Mourvillier B, Trouillet JL, Timsit JF, Baudot J, Chastre J, Regnier B, Gibert C, Wolff M. Infective endocarditis in the intensive care unit: clinical spectrum and prognostic factors in 228 consecutive patients. Intensive Care Med 2004;30: 2046–2052. 412. Sonneville R, Mirabel M, Hajage D, Tubach F, Vignon P, Perez P, Lavoue S, Kouatchet A, Pajot O, Mekontso DA, Tonnelier JM, Bollaert PE, Frat JP, Navellou JC, Hyvernat H, Hssain AA, Tabah A, Trouillet JL, Wolff M. Neurologic complications and outcomes of infective endocarditis in critically ill patients: the ENDOcardite en REAnimation prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med 2011;39:1474–1481. 413. Fernandez Guerrero ML, Alvarez B, Manzarbeitia F, Renedo G. Infective endocar- ditis at autopsy: a review of pathologic manifestations and clinical correlates. Medi- cine (Baltimore) 2012;91:152–164. 414. Saydain G, Singh J, Dalal B, Yoo W, Levine DP. Outcome of patients with injection drug use-associated endocarditis admitted to an intensive care unit. J Crit Care 2010;25:248–253. 415. McDonald JR. Acute infective endocarditis. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2009;23: 643–664. 416. Karth G, Koreny M, Binder T, Knapp S, Zauner C, Valentin A, Honninger R, Heinz G, Siostrzonek P. Complicated infective endocarditis necessitating ICU ad- mission: clinical course and prognosis. Crit Care 2002;6:149–154. 417. Glockner A, Cornely OA. [Invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic adults: guideline-based management in the intensive care unit]. Anaesthetist 2013;62: 1003–1009. 418. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Douglas IS, Jaeschke R, Osborn TM, Nunnally ME, Townsend SR, Reinhart K, Kleinpell RM, Angus DC, Deutschman CS, Machado FR, Rubenfeld GD, Webb S, Beale RJ, Vincent JL, Moreno R. Surviving Sepsis Cam- paign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med 2013;39:165–228. 419. Frontera JA, Gradon JD. Right-side endocarditis in injection drug users: review of proposed mechanisms of pathogenesis. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:374–379. 420. Wilson LE, Thomas DL, Astemborski J, Freedman TL, Vlahov D. Prospective study of infective endocarditis among injection drug users. J Infect Dis 2002;185: 1761–1766. 421. Gebo KA, Burkey MD, Lucas GM, Moore RD, Wilson LE. Incidence of, risk factors for, clinical presentation, and 1-year outcomes of infective endocarditis in an ur- ban HIV cohort. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006;43:426–432. 422. Cooper HL, Brady JE, Ciccarone D, Tempalski B, Gostnell K, Friedman SR. Na- tionwide increase in the number of hospitalizations for illicit injection drug use-related infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:1200–1203. 423. Miro JM, del Rio A, Mestres CA. Infective endocarditis and cardiac surgery in intra- venous drug abusers and HIV-1 infected patients. Cardiol Clin 2003;21:167–184. 424. Sousa C, Botelho C, Rodrigues D, Azeredo J, Oliveira R. Infective endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers: an update. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31: 2905–2910. 425. Carozza A, De Santo LS, Romano G, Della CA, Ursomando F, Scardone M, Caianiello G, Cotrufo M. Infective endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers: patterns of presentation and long-term outcomes of surgical treatment. J Heart Valve Dis 2006;15:125–131. 426. Hecht SR, Berger M. Right-sided endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Prognostic features in 102 episodes. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:560–566. 427. Moss R, Munt B. Injection drug use and right sided endocarditis. Heart 2003;89: 577–581. 428. Gottardi R, Bialy J, Devyatko E, Tschernich H, Czerny M, Wolner E, Seitelberger R. Midterm follow-up of tricuspid valve reconstruction due to active infective endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:1943–1948. 429. Gaca JG, Sheng S, Daneshmand M, Rankin JS, Williams ML, O’Brien SM, Gammie JS. Current outcomes for tricuspid valve infective endocarditis surgery in North America. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96:1374–1381. 430. San Roman JA, Vilacosta I, Lopez J, Revilla A, Arnold R, Sevilla T, Rollan MJ. Role of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography in right-sided endocarditis: one echocardiographic modality does not fit all. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2012;25: 807–814. 431. San Roman JA, Vilacosta I, Zamorano JL, Almeria C, Sanchez-Harguindey L. Trans- esophageal echocardiography in right-sided endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 21:1226–1230. 432. Winslow T, Foster E, Adams JR, Schiller NB. Pulmonary valve endocarditis: im- proved diagnosis with biplane transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echo- cardiogr 1992;5:206–210. 433. Botsford KB, Weinstein RA, Nathan CR, Kabins SA. Selective survival in pentazo- cine and tripelennamine of Pseudomonas aeruginosa serotype O11 from drug ad- dicts. J Infect Dis 1985;151:209–216. 434. Martin-Davila P, Navas E, Fortun J, Moya JL, Cobo J, Pintado V, Quereda C, Jimenez-Mena M, Moreno S. Analysis of mortality and risk factors associated with native valve endocarditis in drug users: the importance of vegetation size. Am Heart J 2005;150:1099–1106. 435. Bisbe J, Miro JM, Latorre X, Moreno A, Mallolas J, Gatell JM, de la Bellacasa JP, Soriano E. Disseminated candidiasis in addicts who use brown heroin: report of 83 cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1992;15:910–923. 436. Ribera E, Gomez-Jimenez J, Cortes E, del Valle O, Planes A, Gonzalez-Alujas T, Almirante B, Ocana I, Pahissa A. Effectiveness of cloxacillin with and without gen- tamicin in short-term therapy for right-sided Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:969–974. 437. Fortun J, Perez-Molina JA, Anon MT, Martinez-Beltran J, Loza E, Guerrero A. Right-sided endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus in drug abusers. Antimi- crob Agents Chemother 1995;39:525–528. 438. Pulvirenti JJ, Kerns E, Benson C, Lisowski J, Demarais P, Weinstein RA. Infective endocarditis in injection drug users: importance of human immunodeficiency virus serostatus and degree of immunosuppression. Clin Infect Dis 1996;22:40–45. 439. Al Omari A, Cameron DW, Lee C, Corrales-Medina VF. Oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2014;14:140. 440. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC Jr., Eliopoulos GM. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vanco- mycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:2398–2402. 441. Akinosoglou K, Apostolakis E, Koutsogiannis N, Leivaditis V, Gogos CA. Right- sided infective endocarditis: surgical management. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42:470–479. 442. Moller JH, Anderson RC. 1,000 consecutive children with a cardiac malformation with 26- to 37-year follow-up. Am J Cardiol 1992;70:661–667. 443. Niwa K, Nakazawa M, Tateno S, Yoshinaga M, Terai M. Infective endocarditis in congenital heart disease: Japanese national collaboration study. Heart 2005;91: 795–800. 444. Verheugt CL, Uiterwaal CS, van der Velde ET, Meijboom FJ, Pieper PG, Veen G, Stappers JL, Grobbee DE, Mulder BJ. Turning 18 with congenital heart disease: prediction of infective endocarditis based on a large population. Eur Heart J 2011;32:1926–1934. 445. Rushani D, Kaufman JS, Ionescu-Ittu R, Mackie AS, Pilote L, Therrien J, Marelli AJ. Infective endocarditis in children with congenital heart disease: cumulative inci- dence and predictors. Circulation 2013;128:1412–1419. 446. Michel PL, Acar J. Native cardiac disease predisposing to infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 1995;16(Suppl B):2–6. 447. De Gevigney G, Pop C, Delahaye JP. The risk of infective endocarditis after cardiac surgical and interventional procedures. Eur Heart J 1995;16(Suppl B):7–14. 448. Roder BL, Wandall DA, Espersen F, Frimodt-Moller N, Skinhoj P, Rosdahl VT. Neurologic manifestations in Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: a review of 260 bacteremic cases in nondrug addicts. Am J Med 1997;102:379–386. 449. Baek JE, Park SJ, Woo SB, Choi JY, Jung JW, Kim NK. Changes in patient character- istics of infective endocarditis with congenital heart disease: 25 years experience in a single institution. Korean Circ J 2014;44:37–41. ESC Guidelines 3123d byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
- 54. 450. Webb R, Voss L, Roberts S, Hornung T, Rumball E, Lennon D. Infective endocar- ditis in New Zealand children 1994–2012. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2014;33:437–442. 451. Di Filippo S, Delahaye F, Semiond B, Celard M, Henaine R, Ninet J, Sassolas F, Bozio A. Current patterns of infective endocarditis in congenital heart disease. Heart 2006;92:1490–1495. 452. Li W, Somerville J. Infective endocarditis in the grown-up congenital heart (GUCH) population. Eur Heart J 1998;19:166–173. 453. Gabriel HM, Heger M, Innerhofer P, Zehetgruber M, Mundigler G, Wimmer M, Maurer G, Baumgartner H. Long-term outcome of patients with ventricular septal defect considered not to require surgical closure during childhood. J Am Coll Car- diol 2002;39:1066–1071. 454. Yoshinaga M, Niwa K, Niwa A, Ishiwada N, Takahashi H, Echigo S, Nakazawa M. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality during infective endocarditis in patients with congenital heart disease. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:114–118. 455. Warnes CA, Williams RG, Bashore TM, Child JS, Connolly HM, Dearani JA, del Nido P, Fasules JW, Graham TP Jr, Hijazi ZM, Hunt SA, King ME, Landzberg MJ, Miner PD, Radford MJ, Walsh EP, Webb GD, Smith SC Jr, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Buller CE, Creager MA, Ettinger SM, Halperin JL, Hunt SA, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, Page RL, Riegel B, Tarkington LG, Yancy CW. ACC/AHA 2008 guidelines for the management of adults with congenital heart disease: a report of the American Col- lege of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease). Developed in Collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Con- genital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:e143–e263. 456. Moons P, De Volder E, Budts W, De Geest S, Elen J, Waeytens K, Gewillig M. What do adult patients with congenital heart disease know about their disease, treatment, and prevention of complications? A call for structured patient educa- tion. Heart 2001;86:74–80. 457. Gersony WM, Hayes CJ, Driscoll DJ, Keane JF, Kidd L, O’Fallon WM, Pieroni DR, Wolfe RR, Weidman WH. Bacterial endocarditis in patients with aortic stenosis, pulmonary stenosis, or ventricular septal defect. Circulation 1993;87:I121–I126. 458. Thilen U, Astrom-Olsson K. Does the risk of infective endarteritis justify routine patent ductus arteriosus closure? Eur Heart J 1997;18:503–506. 459. Foley M. Cardiac disease. In: Dildy G, Belfort M, Saade G, Phelan J, Hankins G, Clark S, eds. Critical care obstetrics, 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004:252–274. 460. Montoya ME, Karnath BM, Ahmad M. Endocarditis during pregnancy. South Med J 2003;96:1156–1157. 461. Roos-Hesselink JW, Ruys TP, Stein JI, Thilen U, Webb GD, Niwa K, Kaemmerer H, Baumgartner H, Budts W, Maggioni AP, Tavazzi L, Taha N, Johnson MR, Hall R. Out- come of pregnancy in patients with structural or ischaemic heart disease: results of a registry of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34:657–665. 462. Morissens M, Viart P, Tecco L, Wauthy P, Michiels S, Dessy H, Malekzadeh MS, Verbeet T, Castro RJ. Does congenital heart disease severely jeopardise family life and pregnancies? Obstetrical history of women with congenital heart disease in a single tertiary centre. Cardiol Young 2013;23:41–46. 463. Aggarwal N, Suri V, Kaur H, Chopra S, Rohila M, Vijayvergiya R. Retrospective ana- lysis of outcome of pregnancy in women with congenital heart disease: single- centre experience from North India. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009;49:376–381. 464. Mazibuko B, Ramnarain H, Moodley J. An audit of pregnant women with prosthet- ic heart valves at a tertiary hospital in South Africa: a five-year experience. Cardi- ovasc J Afr 2012;23:216–221. 465. Ong E, Mechtouff L, Bernard E, Cho TH, Diallo LL, Nighoghossian N, Derex L. Thrombolysis for stroke caused by infective endocarditis: an illustrative case and review of the literature. J Neurol 2013;260:1339–1342. 466. Tornos P, Almirante B, Mirabet S, Permanyer G, Pahissa A, Soler-Soler J. Infective endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus: deleterious effect of anticoagulant ther- apy. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:473–475. 467. Snygg-Martin U, Rasmussen RV, Hassager C, Bruun NE, Andersson R, Olaison L. Warfarin therapy and incidence of cerebrovascular complications in left-sided na- tive valve endocarditis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2011;30:151–157. 468. Kupferwasser LI, Yeaman MR, Shapiro SM, Nast CC, Sullam PM, Filler SG, Bayer AS. Acetylsalicylic acid reduces vegetation bacterial density, hematogenous bacterial dissemination, and frequency of embolic events in experimental Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis through antiplatelet and antibacterial effects. Circulation 1999;99:2791–2797. 469. Habib A, Irfan M, Baddour LM, Le KY, Anavekar NS, Lohse CM, Friedman PA, Hayes DL, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Sohail MR. Impact of prior aspirin therapy on clinical manifestations of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infec- tions. Europace 2013;15:227–235. 470. Chan KL, Tam J, Dumesnil JG, Cujec B, Sanfilippo AJ, Jue J, Turek M, Robinson T, Williams K. Effect of long-term aspirin use on embolic events in infective endocar- ditis. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:37–41. 471. Snygg-Martin U, Rasmussen RV, Hassager C, Bruun NE, Andersson R, Olaison L. The relationship between cerebrovascular complications and previously estab- lished use of antiplatelet therapy in left-sided infective endocarditis. Scand J Infect Dis 2011;43:899–904. 472. Silbiger JJ. The valvulopathy of non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis. J Heart Valve Dis 2009;18:159–166. 473. Zamorano J, Sanz J, Almeria C, Rodrigo JL, Samedi M, Herrera D, Aubele A, Mataix L, Serra V, Moreno R, Sanchez-Harguindei L. Differences between endo- carditis with true negative blood cultures and those with previous antibiotic treat- ment. J Heart Valve Dis 2003;12:256–260. 474. Mazokopakis EE, Syros PK, Starakis IK. Nonbacterial thrombotic endocarditis (marantic endocarditis) in cancer patients. Cardiovasc Hematol Disord Drug Targets 2010;10:84–86. 475. Dutta T, Karas MG, Segal AZ, Kizer JR. Yield of transesophageal echocardiography for nonbacterial thrombotic endocarditis and other cardiac sources of embolism in cancer patients with cerebral ischemia. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:894–898. 476. Zamorano J, de Isla LP, Moura L, Almeria C, Rodrigo JL, Aubele A, Macaya C. Im- pact of echocardiography in the short- and long-term prognosis of patients with infective endocarditis and negative blood cultures. J Heart Valve Dis 2004;13: 997–1004. 477. Lisnevskaia L, Murphy G, Isenberg D. Systemic lupus erythematosus. Lancet 2014; 384:1878–1888. 478. Giles I, Khamashta M, D’Cruz D, Cohen H. A new dawn of anticoagulation for pa- tients with antiphospholipid syndrome? Lupus 2012;21:1263–1265. 479. Thomsen RW, Farkas DK, Friis S, Svaerke C, Ording AG, Norgaard M, Sorensen HT. Endocarditis and risk of cancer: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Am J Med 2013;126:58–67. 480. Gupta A, Madani R, Mukhtar H. Streptococcus bovis endocarditis, a silent sign for colonic tumour. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:164–171. 481. Boleij A, van Gelder MM, Swinkels DW, Tjalsma H. Clinical Importance of Strepto- coccus gallolyticus infection among colorectal cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2011;53:870–878. 482. Ferrari A, Botrugno I, Bombelli E, Dominioni T, Cavazzi E, Dionigi P. Colonoscopy is mandatory after Streptococcus bovis endocarditis: a lesson still not learned. Case report. World J Surg Oncol 2008;6:49. 483. Darjee R, Gibb AP. Serological investigation into the association between Strepto- coccus bovis and colonic cancer. J Clin Pathol 1993;46:1116–1119. ESC Guidelines3123e byguestonMarch13,2016http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom