The Importance of Echocardiography in Physicians' Support of Endocarditis Prophylaxis | Cardiology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Dajani  ASTaubert  KAWilson  W  et al.  Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Recommendations by the American Heart Association.  JAMA 1997;2771794- 1801PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Danchin  NDuval  XLeport  C Prophylaxis of infective endocarditis: French recommendation 2002.  Heart 2005;91715- 718PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
The Task Force on Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology, Guidelines on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis: executive summary.  Eur Heart J 2004;25267- 276PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Elliot  TSJFoweraker  JFulford  M  et al. British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Guidelines for the prevention of endocarditis—draft for consultation (2005). http://www.bsac.org.uk/. Accessed August 25, 2005
5.
Agha  ZLofgren  RPVanRuiswyk  JV Is antibiotic prophylaxis for bacterial endocarditis cost-effective?  Med Decis Making 2005;25308- 320PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Olive  KEGrassman  ED Impact of echocardiography on the management of patients with mitral valve prolapse.  J Gen Intern Med 1990;5470- 473PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Heidenreich  PABear  JBrowner  WFoster  E The clinical impact of echocardiography on antibiotic prophylaxis use in patients with suspected mitral valve prolapse.  Am J Med 1997;102337- 343PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Hershman  WYMoskowitz  MAMarton  KIBalady  GJ Utility of echocardiography in patients with suspected mitral valve prolapse.  Am J Med 1989;87371- 376PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Lavie  CJKhandheria  BKSeward  JBTajik  JTaylor  CLBallard  DJ Factors associated with the recommendation for endocarditis prophylaxis in mitral valve prolapse.  JAMA 1989;2623308- 3312PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Ansari  MAlexander  MTutar  ABelo  DMassie  BM Cardiology participation improves outcomes in patients with new-onset heart failure in the outpatient setting.  J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;4162- 68PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Rutten  FHGrobbee  DEHoes  AW Diagnosis and management of heart failure: a questionnaire among general practitioner and cardiologists.  Eur J Heart Fail 2003;5345- 348PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Abubakar  IKanka  DArch  BPorter  JWeissberg  P Outcome after acute myocardial infarction: a comparison of patients seen by cardiologists and general practitioners.  BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2004;414- 20PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Guadagnoli  ENormand  SLTDiSalvo  TGPalmer  RHMcNeil  BJ Effects of treatment recommendations and specialist intervention on care provided by primary care physicians to patients with myocardial infarction or heart failure.  Am J Med 2004;117371- 379PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Seto  TBThomas  LBaden  LRManning  WJ Specialty and training differences in the reported use of endocarditis prophylaxis at an academic medical center.  Am J Med 2001;111657- 660PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Calenda  PJain  PSmith  LG Utilization of echocardiography by internists and cardiologists: a comparative study.  Am J Med 1996;101584- 591PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Alloggiamento  TCummings  SRRedberg  RF Do cardiologists and general internists differ in testing and treating patients with aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation? a preliminary study with editorial perspective.  Am Heart J 1999;137596- 600PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Croft  LBDonnino  RShapiro  R  et al.  Age-related prevalence of cardiac valvular abnormalities warranting infectious endocarditis prophylaxis.  Am J Cardiol 2004;94386- 389PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Singh  JPEvans  JPLevy  D  et al.  Prevalence and clinical determinants of mitral, tricuspid and aortic regurgitation (the Framingham Heart Study).  Am J Cardiol 1999;83897- 902PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Mangione  S Cardiac auscultatory skills of physicians-in-training: a comparison of three English-speaking countries.  Am J Med 2001;110210- 216PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Chan  B Non-invasive cardiac diagnostic testing. Naylor  DSlaughter  P Cardiovascular Health and Services in Ontario: An ICES Atlas. Toronto, Ontario Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences1999;255- 266Google Scholar
21.
Krumholz  HM Cardiac procedures, outcomes, and accountability.  N Engl J Med 1997;3361522- 1523Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Morris  AMWebb  GD Antibiotics before dental procedures for endocarditis prophylaxis: back to the future.  Heart 2001;863- 4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Swanson  GBergston  KStump  EMiyahara  THerfindal  ET Growth factor usage and outcomes in the community setting: collection through a practice based computerized clinical information system.  J Clin Oncol 2000;181764- 1770PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Maue  SKSegal  RKimberlin  CLLipowski  EE Predicting physician guideline compliance: an assessment of motivators and perceived barriers.  Am J Manag Care 2004;10383- 391PubMedGoogle Scholar
Citations 0
Original Investigation
March 13, 2006

The Importance of Echocardiography in Physicians' Support of Endocarditis Prophylaxis

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of Toronto (Drs Singh, Joyner, and Alter); Division of Cardiology, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre (Drs Joyner and Alter); and The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Science (Dr Alter); Toronto, Ontario.

Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(5):549-553. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.5.549
Abstract

Background  Guidelines advocate for antimicrobial prophylaxis for prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Our objective was to explore physicians' perspectives regarding the importance of echocardiography in the evaluation and management of endocarditis prophylaxis.

Methods  A total of 260 cardiologists and 300 family physicians practicing in Ontario, Canada, were surveyed. Our main outcome measures were physician ratings of the importance of a murmur, echocardiogram findings, echocardiogram comments, comorbid conditions, guidelines, patient insistence, and medicolegal concerns on the decision to recommend prophylaxis, as well as the degree of echocardiographically detected mitral valve abnormality required prior to recommending prophylaxis.

Results  The survey response rate was 62%. Echocardiographic findings were rated by 81% of physicians as the most important factor influencing the decision to provide prophylaxis. Conversely, only 27% of physicians placed similar importance on clinical findings. Family physicians relied more heavily on echocardiographic than on clinical findings when supporting endocarditis prophylaxis recommendations. On average, prophylaxis was recommended for moderate to severe regurgitation in a normal valve and mild regurgitation in a mildly abnormal structural mitral valve. Physicians who reported greater reliance on echocardiographic findings advocated for prophylaxis at lower echocardiographic thresholds than did those who reported greater reliance on murmur detection for endocarditis prophylaxis decisions.

Conclusions  Physicians strongly support the use of echocardiography in endocarditis prophylaxis decision making. However, the importance of echocardiography relative to other factors varies across physician specialties. Further studies must evaluate the role of echocardiography in the assessment and management of antimicrobial endocarditis prophylaxis to assist in the development of clear clinical guidelines.

×