This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Bacterial Infections  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Dentistry/ Oral Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic

Todd B. Seto, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(4):333.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

A thoughtful compelling argument against the use of infectious endocarditis (IE) prophylaxis is presented by Dr Morris, and he correctly suggests that definitive data from a randomized controlled clinical trial are not likely to be forthcoming.

The crux of this debate centers on how we make decisions in the absence of definitive data. In each of the studies described by Dr Morris, a potential benefit of IE cannot be definitively excluded. For example, in the 2 studies cited as evidence against IE, prophylactic antibiotics seem to decrease the risk of IE, with a protective effect ranging from 20% to 49%.^1-2 Although not statistically significant, the results are not irrelevant, particularly when considered along with 2 studies that reported a statistically significant protective effect of IE prophylaxis.^3-4 In addition, it may not be reasonable to expect 100% effectiveness, particularly in nonrandomized, community-based, retrospective studies that may . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Coming Clean With Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Infective Endocarditis
Andrew Mark Morris
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(4):330-332.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT