Dhoble Abhijeet, Vedre Ameeth, Abdelmoneim Sahar S, Sudini Srikar Reddy, Ghose Amit, Abela George S, Karve Milind
Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1313, USA.
Clin Cardiol. 2009 Aug;32(8):429-33. doi: 10.1002/clc.20583.
The American Heart Association (AHA) published their revised guidelines in 2007 in which they markedly limited the recommendations for the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis (IE), except for patients who are at highest risk of adverse outcomes. A recent focused update on valvular heart diseases changed the recommendation for antibiotic use for patients with many underlying heart conditions including mitral valve prolapse (MVP) which were considered as "low risk" heart defects. In this article, we argue that antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered until concrete clinical evidence is provided to dispute against the use of this strategy, especially for patients with MVP. This approach is cost efficient, and provides a chance to prevent a dreadful disease. We have also enlisted 2 clinical cases to support our argument. These are not uncommon clinical scenarios, and emphasize that IE can be fatal in spite of optimum treatment. Patients have the right to make the final decision, and they should be allowed to participate in choosing for or against this approach until adequate clinical evidence is available.
美国心脏协会(AHA)于2007年发布了修订后的指南,其中除了对不良后果风险最高的患者外,显著限制了使用抗菌药物预防感染性心内膜炎(IE)的建议。最近针对瓣膜性心脏病的重点更新改变了对许多潜在心脏病患者使用抗生素的建议,包括二尖瓣脱垂(MVP),这些疾病曾被视为“低风险”心脏缺陷。在本文中,我们认为在有具体临床证据反驳该策略的使用之前,应考虑使用抗生素预防,尤其是对于MVP患者。这种方法具有成本效益,并提供了预防一种可怕疾病的机会。我们还列举了2个临床病例来支持我们的观点。这些并非罕见的临床情况,并强调尽管进行了最佳治疗,IE仍可能致命。患者有权做出最终决定,在有足够临床证据之前,应允许他们参与选择支持或反对这种方法。