ArticleHerz2010
[Diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis. Current ESC guidelines].
Article in Herz, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal understanding of infective endocarditis after hospitalization: assessing the knowledge of mothers of children with congenital heart disease and the practical implications.Pediatric cardiology · 2014Article
- [Guidelines--"to be continued"].Herz · 2010Article
- Ultra-high-resolution X-ray structure of proteins.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To account for the current evidence in the field of infective endocarditis and to harmonize deviant national guidelines, in 2009 the European Society of Cardiology published novel recommendations on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis.The most important changes can be found concerning antimicrobial prophylaxis for endocarditis, the antimicrobial treatment of endocarditis caused by S. aureus and the indications for surgical treatment.Due to the weak evidence about prophylactic administration of antibiotics before procedures at risk for bacteraemia to prevent infective endocarditis, the novel guidelines recommend prophylaxis only in patients with the highest risk for infection and lethal course of endocarditis. These are patients with prosthetic valves or prosthetic material used for cardiac repair, patients with previous endocarditis and patients with congenital heart disease. A narrow definition of procedures at risk was proposed only including dental procedures requiring manipulation of the gingival or periapical region of teeth.For endocarditis caused by S. aureus an additional gentamicin administration was previously recommended but this is now seen only as optional due to its nephrotoxicity. In methicillin-resistant strains daptomycin is a possible alternative to vancomycin. In strains susceptible to methicillin, beta-lactamic antibiotics were definitively preferred than the usage of vancomycin due to better outcome. The current guidelines recommend definitive timing and risk constellations for surgical treatment of infective endocarditis. For example, cardiac shock due to valvular lesions refractory to medical treatment should give rise to an emergency intervention within 24 h. Other indication groups contain uncontrolled infection and prevention of embolism and indications were defined as urgent or elective depending on the clinical situation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.