Acute localized exanthematous pustulosis (ALEP) caused by Ibuprofen. A case report

Acute generalized exanthematic pustulosis (AGEP) is characterized by a generalized rash and sterile disseminated, sometimes coalescing subcorneal pustules. It occurs in body flexures such as the inguinal folds and intertriginous areas. The acute onset of disease is accompanied by malaise, fever >38 degrees C and peripheral granulocytosis. We report on a female patient who according to the criteria of AGEP was diagnosed as having acute localized exanthematic pustulosis (ALEP) on the face.     

Adverse reaction to prophylactic amoxicillin: a case report

Antibiotic prophylaxis is required prior to invasive dental procedures for those patients at risk of bacterial endocarditis. The clinician should be aware of the possibility of allergic reaction to the antibiotics and be prepared for the medical management of the symptoms. This paper presents a case of an allergic reaction to prophylactic amoxicillin administered orally to a patient prior to dental treatment.     

Topical antibiotic prophylaxis for bacteremia after dental extractions

OBJECTIVE: Current prophylaxis for endocarditis in patients undergoing dental procedures consists of oral administration of amoxicillin. There is concern that the risk of anaphylaxis from systemically administered antibiotics might approach the incidence of endocarditis. Emergence of resistance among bacteria is also favored by systemically administered antibiotics. The present study was designed to assess the efficacy of topical amoxicillin given prophylactically as a mouthwash in reducing the incidence of bacteremia after dental extraction. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-six outpatients in a dental clinic were randomized in a 3:2:2 ratio to experimental prophylaxis of topical amoxicillin (3 g per mouthwash rinse; 15 patients), standard prophylaxis of oral amoxicillin (3 g in a single dose; 11 patients), or no prophylaxis (10 patients), respectively. Patients were stratified by severity of periodontal disease and number of teeth extracted. Data were analyzed for differences in the incidence of bacteremia by means of the 2-tailed Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Breakthrough bacteremia after dental extraction was observed in 60% (6 of 10 patients) who received topical amoxicillin and in 89% (8 of 9 patients) who received no prophylaxis (P =.30). By comparison, breakthrough bacteremia after dental extraction was observed in 10% (1 of 10 patients) who received standard prophylaxis with oral amoxicillin (60% vs 10%; P =.05). CONCLUSIONS: Topical amoxicillin decreased the incidence of bacteremia in comparison with no prophylaxis, but statistical significance was not achieved (P =.30). Topical amoxicillin was significantly less effective than standard prophylaxis with oral amoxicillin in decreasing the incidence of bacteremia after dental extractions.     

New concept in chemoprophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis resulting from dental treatment

Bacteremia following dental procedures may lead to bacterial endocarditis in susceptible patients. Traditional methods of chemoprophylaxis with a parenteral loading dose of penicillin followed by oral penicillin have proved impractical outside the hospital. In 1978, it was suggested in England that amoxicillin be substituted as the drug of choice in the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis. The recommended mode of treatment was a single oral dose of 3 g amoxicillin administered 1 hour before onset of the dental procedure. Amoxicillin is absorbed to a greater extent and more rapidly than penicillin V. It maintains its effectiveness throughout the critical postoperative period at concentrations well over the minimum necessary to combat Streptococcus viridans. Amoxicillin has two mechanisms of protection: bactericidal and inhibition of bacterial adherence to the thrombotic vegetation on injured heart valves. Data obtained from 206 susceptible patients undergoing dental treatment under chemoprophylaxis with amoxicillin showed that in no case did infective endocarditis occur. Only in 13.1% of the patients could very mild side effects of this drug be observed. With this new method, there is a higher incidence of patient compliance and administration is easier to supervise.     

Efficacy of antibiotic prophylactic regimens for the prevention of bacterial endocarditis of oral origin

Despite the controversy about the risk of individuals developing bacterial endocarditis of oral origin, numerous Expert Committees in different countries continue to publish prophylactic regimens for the prevention of bacterial endocarditis secondary to dental procedures. In this paper, we analyze the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of bacteremia following dental manipulations and in the prevention of bacterial endocarditis (in both animal models and human studies). Antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines remain consensus-based, and there is scientific evidence of the efficacy of amoxicillin in the prevention of bacteremia following dental procedures, although the results reported do not confirm the efficacy of other recommended antibiotics. The majority of studies on experimental models of bacterial endocarditis have verified the efficacy of antibiotics administered after the induction of bacteremia, confirming the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in later stages in the development of bacterial endocarditis. There is no scientific evidence that prophylaxis with penicillin is effective in reducing bacterial endocarditis secondary to dental procedures in patients considered to be "at risk". It has been suggested that there is a high risk of severe allergic reactions secondary to prophylactically administered penicillins, but, in reality, very few cases have been reported in the literature. It has been demonstrated that antibiotic prophylaxis could contribute to the development of bacterial resistance, but only after the administration of several consecutive doses. Future research on bacterial endocarditis prophylactic protocols should involve the re-evaluation of the time and route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis, and a search for alternative antimicrobials.     

Gentamycin for prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis: a review for the dentist

New guidelines have recommended that gentamicin in combination with ampicillin be used for prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in patients with prosthetic heart valves. This article reviews some of the important and practical considerations for its use by the dentist. Gentamicin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic most exclusively reserved for treatment of serious infections caused by gram-negative bacteria in which less toxic antibacterials are ineffective. It has also been shown to be impressive in combination with penicillin in treating high-risk endocarditis patients. All strains of enterococci that are resistant to penicillin plus streptomycin are almost always sensitive to penicillin plus gentamicin. There is minimal absorption into the bloodstream from the gastrointestinal tract after oral administration but rapid absorption after intramuscular injection. Peak serum concentrations appear 30 to 90 minutes after intramuscular injection. The T1/2 is 2 hours, and in normal kidneys 85% to 95% of the drug is excreted within 24 hours by glomerular filtration. Ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity are the most serious toxic effects resulting from gentamicin therapy. The incidence of ototoxicity is about 2%, with affected patients experiencing vestibular effects rather than hearing loss. Nephrotoxicity is usually not seen before the patient has had 5 to 7 days of frequent dosing for treatment of systemic infections; the incidence is 2% to 4%. There are no data to suggest that ototoxicity or nephrotoxicity will occur in the patient given a single intramuscular injection of gentamicin for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis. A single intramuscular or intravenous injection each of ampicillin and gentamicin should provide adequate blood levels for protection in the endocarditis patient for at least 4 to 5 hours.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry: a review and practice recommendations

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association, or AHA, and the American Dental Association recently changed their recommended protocols for antibiotic prophylaxis against bacterial endocarditis. A new recommendation also has been issued by the ADA and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, or AAOS, against routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with prosthetic joint replacements. These changes reflect increasing scientific evidence and professional experience in opposition to widespread use of antibiotic prophylaxis in these specific situations and others faced in dentistry. METHODS: The authors reviewed the medical and dental literature for scientific evidence regarding the use of antibiotics to prevent local and systemic infections associated with dental treatment. Situations commonly considered by dentists for potential use of prophylactic antibiotics were reviewed to determine current evidence with regard to use of antimicrobial agents. This included prevention of distant spread of oral organisms to susceptible sites elsewhere in the body and the reduction of local infections associated with oral procedures. RESULTS: There are relatively few situations in which antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated. Aside from the clearly defined instances of endocarditis and late prosthetic joint infections, there is no consensus among experts on the need for prophylaxis. There is wide variation in recommended protocols, but little scientific basis for the recommendations. The emerging trend seems to be to avoid the prophylactic use of antibiotics in conjunction with dental treatment unless there is a clear indication. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from the specific situations described, there is little or no scientific basis for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry. The risk of inappropriate used of antibiotics and widespread antibiotic resistance appear to be far more important than any possible perceived benefit. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentists are wise to use antibiotic prophylaxis in only those specific situations in which there is a valid scientific basis for it. Whenever possible, dentists should follow the standard protocols recommended by the ADA, AHA or AAOS.     

Severe prosthetic valve-related endocarditis following dental scaling: a case report.

There is a well-known correlation between surgical dental procedures and the risk of bacterial endocarditis in patients with prosthetic cardiac valves. A 43-year-old patient with prosthetic aortic and mitral valves, which already have been removed twice because of endocarditis, suffered from a prosthetic valve-related endocarditis following dental scaling, which was performed without any antibiotic prophylaxis. Invasive medical procedures in patients with prosthetic heart valves may lead to endocarditis. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended even for dental procedures considered to be "harmless," such as dental scaling.     

Prevention of infective endocarditis and bacterial resistance to antibiotics: A brief review

The purpose of this statement is to debate the recommendations of the American Heart Association (AHA) for the prevention of infective endocarditis through an antibiotic prophylaxis protocol and its relation with bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Since dental infections involve biofilms that include several bacterial species (Gram‐negative and Gram‐positive), it is essential, from the dental point of view, to consider the frequency, magnitude, and duration of bacteremia associated with active dental infections before applying antibiotic prophylaxis. The actual guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis should be revised according to recent evidence of bacterial resistance. Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and moxifloxacin should be considered due to their effectiveness against bacteria associated with oral, GU, and GI infections and the low rates of antibiotic resistance associated with these antibiotics, instead of the actual protocol, which includes amoxicillin (2 g) or clindamycin (600 mg) administered an hour before the dental procedures. The breaking point to test the antibiotic bacterial resistance (ABR) had a wide range in the different studies that were analyzed, which could explain the widely varied ABR percentages reported for the various antibiotics used for antibiotic prophylaxis.     

Antimicrobial resistance in the subgingival microflora in patients with adult periodontitis. A comparison between The Netherlands and Spain

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of antibiotics for prophylaxis and treatment of bacterial infections has lead to the emergence of resistant human pathogens. Great differences have been documented between European countries in the use of systemic antibiotics. In parallel, significant differences in levels of resistant pathogens have been documented. AIM: To investigate whether differences in antibiotic use influence the level of antimicrobial resistance of the subgingival microflora of untreated patients with adult periodontitis in The Netherlands and Spain. METHOD: Blood agar plates containing breakpoint concentrations of penicillin, amoxicillin, amoxicillin and clavunalate, metronidazole, erythromycin, azithromycin, clindamycin and tetracycline were used to determine the proportion of bacteria from the subgingival plaque that was resistant to these antibiotics. In the Spanish patients, statistically significant higher mean levels of resistance were found for penicillin, amoxicillin, metronidazole, clindamycin and tetracycline. The mean number of different bacterial species growing on the selective plates was higher in the Spanish patients, as was the % of resistant strains of most periodontal pathogens. A striking difference was observed in the frequency of occurrence of tetracycline-resistant periodontal pathogens. In Spain, 5 patients had > or =3 tetracycline resistant periodontal pathogens, whereas this was not observed in any of the Dutch patients. CONCLUSIONS: The widespread use of antibiotics in Spain is reflected in the level of resistance of the subgingival microflora of adult patients with periodontitis.     

The changing spectrum of clostridium difficile associated disease: implications for dentistry

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile is an anaerobic, spore-forming bacterium that causes a wide range of diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. It is best known for its association with uncomplicated antimicrobial-agent-associated diarrhea. CASE DESCRIPTION: The authors describe two previously published cases of Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD) to highlight its varied clinical manifestations. A 48-year-old woman had mild CDAD after receiving antibiotics after undergoing endodontic surgery. She took metronidazole, and her C. difficile infection resolved. A 31-year-old pregnant woman developed severe CDAD after receiving antibiotics for a urinary tract infection. She underwent surgery to remove part of her colon, but her condition worsened, and she died. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentists often prescribe antimicrobial agents to treat infections. Until recently, these agents also were recommended as prophylaxis for infective endocarditis during invasive oral procedures. An important risk factor for CDAD and recurrent CDAD is antimicrobial agent exposure. Dentists should be aware of CDAD to help prevent its spread and facilitate early recognition and treatment to minimize severe outcomes.     

Demystifying medical complexities

Although dentists often fear treating medically complex patients, in many cases this fear may be based not on scientific facts but rather on a "mythology" of the dangers of dentistry. Dentistry is a remarkably safe profession, even for most medically complex patients. The myths of endocarditis, artificial joint infections, local anesthetics and vasoconstrictors, dental surgery in anticoagulated patients and patients on antiplatelet drugs, and antibiotic interference with oral contraceptives are discussed. Although dental treatment is not usually a risk factor for endocarditis, practitioners should consult the 1997 American Heart Association statement for recommendations for endocarditis prevention. Most artificial joint patients should not receive antibiotic prophylaxis. Local anesthetics and vasoconstrictors can be used safely in most medically complex patients. Neither continuous anticoagulation nor antiplatelet medications should be withdrawn for dental surgery. Scientific studies have failed to document an interaction between antibiotics used in dentistry and oral contraceptives.     

Selection of dental procedures for antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis

A dental source of infection remains the most common identifiable risk factor in infective endocarditis and this may be particularly important in patients at ‘high risk’. We therefore performed a questionnaire survey of dental practitioners to assess acceptance of The British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) recommendations, especially with regards to selection of dental procedures for antibiotic prophylaxis. The results showed that the dental practitioners surveyed treated the ‘high risk’ patient group differently by extending the range of dental procedures covered by antibiotics but the BSAC only recommend that they be treated differently by hospital treatment and/or parenteral antibiotics. This must be an area of concern and deserves further attention, especially with regards to the need for wider publicity and the range of dental procedures that should be covered in the ‘high risk’ group where morbidity and mortality from infective endocarditis are higher.     

A critical appraisal of antibiotic prophylaxis

To some, antibiotic prophylaxis has reached the level of doctrine: it is highly successful with little attendant harm to the patient. To its skeptics, antibiotic prophylaxis has rarely been proved effective in human clinical studies and possesses little present scientific justification. The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. The use of antibiotic chemoprophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis in high-risk patients and other bacteraemia-induced infections in individuals with orthopaedic prostheses, impaired host defences and on haemodialysis is probably justified prior to dental treatment. Yet the issue of risk-benefit needs to be properly addressed. In some situations antibiotic prophylaxis may, potentially, be more harmful to the patient than the infection that might be prevented. With antibiotic prophylaxis there is no certainty that it will work in any specific situation. The general impression that dentist-induced bacteraemias are responsible for the vast majority of infective endocarditis cases is erroneous, for these bacteraemias may cause as little as 4 per cent or less of all infective endocarditis. A minor role for dentist-induced bacteraemias in other infections is also likely.     

Antibiotic prophylaxis in a patient with penicillin allergy and recurrent bacterial endocarditis: A case report

Bacterial endocarditis (BE) is a rare and life-threatening heart infection that can be caused by oral microorganisms. Patients with specific cardiac valvular abnormalities as well as those with a history of recurrent episodes of endocarditis are considered to be at high-risk for developing BE. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for high-risk individuals when bleeding is anticipated during dental procedures. Penicillins are the antibiotics of choice in preventing endocarditis, while other medications are indicated for patients with penicillin allergies. This case presentation outlines antibiotic prophylaxis prior to restorative care for a 44-year-old man who had a prosthetic heart valve, history of recurrent infective endocarditis and penicillin allergy. Intravenously administered van-comycin and gentamicin were prescribed due to the patients' level of risk and bleeding propensity. This article was written to raise the awareness of dental practitioners to the antibiotic prophylaxis options available for the treatment of patients with cardiac and associated systemic conditions.