penicillin for secondary prevention of rheumatic fever or for other purposes are likely to have viridans group streptococci in their oral cavity that are relatively resistant to penicillin or amoxicillin. In such cases, the provider should select either clindamycin, azithromycin, or clarithromycin for IE prophy- laxis for a dental procedure, but only for patients shown in Table 3. Because of possible cross-resistance of viridans group streptococci with cephalosporins, this class of antibi- otics should be avoided. If possible, it would be preferable to delay a dental procedure until at least 10 days after comple- tion of the antibiotic therapy. This may allow time for the usual oral flora to be reestablished. Patients receiving parenteral antibiotic therapy for IE may require dental procedures during antimicrobial therapy, particu- larly if subsequent cardiac valve replacement surgery is antici- pated. In these cases, the parenteral antibiotic therapy for IE should be continued and the timing of the dosage adjusted to be administered 30 to 60 minutes before the dental procedure. This parenteral antimicrobial therapy is administered in such high doses that the high concentration would overcome any possible low-level resistance developed among mouth flora (unlike the concentration that would occur after oral administration). Patients Who Receive Anticoagulants Intramuscular injections for IE prophylaxis should be avoided in patients who are receiving anticoagulant therapy (Class I, LOE A). In these circumstances, orally administered regi- mens should be given whenever possible. Intravenously administered antibiotics should be used for patients who are unable to tolerate or absorb oral medications. Patients Who Undergo Cardiac Surgery A careful preoperative dental evaluation is recommended so that required dental treatment may be completed whenever possible before cardiac valve surgery or replacement or repair of CHD. Such measures may decrease the incidence of late prosthetic valve endocarditis caused by viridans group streptococci.


Such measures may decrease the incidence of late prosthetic valve endocarditis caused by viridans group streptococci. Patients who undergo surgery for placement of prosthetic heart valves or prosthetic intravascular or intracardiac mate- rials are at risk for the development of infection.152 Because the morbidity and mortality of infection in these patients are high, perioperative prophylactic antibiotics are recommended (Class I, LOE B). Early-onset prosthetic valve endocarditis is most often caused by S aureus, coagulase-negative staphylo- cocci, or diphtheroids. No single antibiotic regimen is effec- tive against all these microorganisms. Prophylaxis at the time of cardiac surgery should be directed primarily against staphylococci and should be of short duration. A first- generation cephalosporin is most often used, but the choice of an antibiotic should be influenced by the antibiotic suscepti- bility patterns at each hospital. For example, a high preva- lence of infection by methicillin-resistant S aureus should prompt the consideration of the use of vancomycin for perioperative prophylaxis. The majority of nosocomial coagulase-negative staphylococci are methicillin-resistant. Nonetheless, surgical prophylaxis with a first-generation cephalosporin may be recommended for these patients (Class I, LOE A).107 In hospitals with a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant strains of S epidermidis, surgical prophylaxis with vancomycin may be reasonable but has not been shown to be superior to prophylaxis with a cephalosporin (Class IIb, LOE C). Prophylaxis should be initiated immediately before the operative procedure, repeated during prolonged procedures to maintain serum concentrations intraoperatively, and continued for no more than 48 hours postoperatively to minimize emergence of resistant micro- organisms (Class IIa, LOE B). The effects of cardiopulmonary bypass and compromised renal function on antibiotic concentra- tions in serum should be considered and dosages adjusted as necessary before and during the procedure.


The effects of cardiopulmonary bypass and compromised renal function on antibiotic concentra- tions in serum should be considered and dosages adjusted as necessary before and during the procedure. Other Considerations There is no evidence that coronary artery bypass graft surgery is associated with a long-term risk for infection. Therefore, antibi- otic prophylaxis for dental procedures is not needed for individ- uals who have undergone this surgery. Antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures is not recommended for patients with coronary artery stents (Class III, LOE C). The treatment and prevention of infection for these and other endovascular grafts and prosthetic devices are addressed in a separate AHA publi- cation.152 There are insufficient data to support specific recom- mendations for patients who have undergone heart transplanta- tion. Such patients are at risk of acquired valvular dysfunction, especially during episodes of rejection. Endocarditis that occurs in a heart transplant patient is associated with a high risk of adverse outcome (Table 3).153 Accordingly, the use of IE prophylaxis for dental procedures in cardiac transplant recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy is reasonable, but the useful- ness is not well established (Class IIa, LOE C; Table 4). The use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection of joint prosthe- ses during potentially bacteremia-inducing procedures is not within the scope of this document. Future Considerations Prospective placebo-controlled, double-blinded studies of anti- biotic prophylaxis of IE in patients who undergo a bacteremia- producing procedure would be necessary to evaluate accurately the efficacy of IE prophylaxis. Additional prospective case- control studies are needed. The AHA has made substantial revisions to previously published guidelines on IE prophylaxis. Given our current recommendations, we anticipate that signifi- cantly fewer patients will receive IE prophylaxis for a dental procedure. Studies are necessary to monitor the effects, if any, of these recommended changes in IE prophylaxis.


Studies are necessary to monitor the effects, if any, of these recommended changes in IE prophylaxis. The incidence of IE could change or stay the same. Because the incidence of IE is low, small changes in incidence may take years to detect. Accordingly, we urge that such studies be designed and insti- tuted promptly so that any change in incidence may be detected sooner rather than later. Subsequent revisions of the AHA guidelines on the preven-tion of IE will be based on the results of these studies and other published data. Acknowledgments The writing group thanks the following international experts on infec- tive endocarditis for their valuable comments: Drs Christa Gohlke- Ba rwolf, Roger Hall, Jae-Hoon Song, Catherine Kilmartin, Catherine Leport, Jose M. Miro , Christoph Naber, Graham Roberts, and Jan T.M. van der Meer. The writing group also thanks Dr George Meyer for his helpful comments regarding gastroenterology. Finally, the writing group would like to thank Lori Hinrichs for her superb assistance with the preparation of this manuscript.


Finally, the writing group would like to thank Lori Hinrichs for her superb assistance with the preparation of this manuscript. Wilson et al Prevention of Infective Endocarditis 1749 Disclosures Writing Group Disclosures Writing Group Member Employment Research Grant Other Research Support Speakers Bureau/ Honoraria Ownership Interest Consultant/ Advisory Board Other Walter Wilson Mayo Clinic None None None None None None Larry M. Baddour Mayo Clinic None None None None None None Robert S. Baltimore Yale University School of Medicine None None None None None None Ann Bolger University of California, San Francisco None None None None None None Robert O. Bonow Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine None None None None None None Jane C. Burns University of California, San Diego None None None None None None Christopher H. Cabell Duke University National Institutes of Health None None None Gloucester*; Shire*; Cubist*; Carbomedics*; GlaxoSmithKline*; Acusphere*; Endo*; Eli Lilly*; Watson*; Johnson & Johnson* None David T. Durack Becton Dickinson & Co (manufactures medical devices and diagnostics) None None None None Joint Commission Resources Board None Patricia Ferrieri University of Minnesota Medical School None None None None None None Timothy Gardner Christiana Care Health System None None None None None None Michael Gerber Cincinnati Children s Hospital Medical Center None None None None None None Michael Gewitz Maria Fareri Children s Hospital of Westchester, New York Medical College None None None None None None David Goff Wake Forest University School of Medicine None None None None Spriggs & Hollingsworth Law Firm; Scientific Evidence Consulting Firm; GlaxoSmithKline* None Matthew Levison Drexel University College of Medicine None None None None Merck* None Peter B. Lockhart Carolinas Medical Center None None None None None None Jane W. Newburger Boston Children s Heart Foundation None None None None None None Thomas Pallasch University of Southern California None None None None Consultation and expert witness testimony on records of patients with endocarditis None Anne H. Rowley Children s Memorial Hospital, Chicago None None None None None None Stanford T. Shulman Children s Memorial Hospital, Chicago None None None None None None Brian L. Strom University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Pfizer* Merck*; Novartis*; Wyeth*; Pfizer* None None Abbott*; GlaxoSmithKline*; Eli Lilly*; Pfizer*; Sanofi Pasteur*; Johnson & Johnson*; Schering AG*; Tap Pharma*; Wyeth* None Masato Takahashi University of Southern California Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging* None None None None None Lloyd Y. Tani University of Utah School of Medicine None None None None None None Kathryn A. Taubert American Heart Association None None None None None None This table represents the relationships of writing group members that may be perceived as actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest as reported on the Disclosure Questionnaire, which all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit.


A relationship is considered to be Significant if (1) the person receives $10 000 or more during any 12-month period, or 5% or more of the person s gross income; or (2) the person owns 5% or more of the voting stock or share of the entity or owns $10 000 or more of the fair market value of the entity. A relationship is considered to be Modest if it is less than Significant under the preceding definition. *Modest. Significant. References 1. Dajani AS, Taubert KA, Wilson W, Bolger AF, Bayer A, Ferrieri P, Gewitz MH, Shulman ST, Nouri S, Newburger JW, Hutto C, Pallasch TJ, Gage TW, Levison ME, Peter G, Zuccaro G Jr. Prevention of bacterial endocarditis: recommendations by the American Heart Asso- ciation. JAMA. 1997;277:1794 1801. 2. Strom BL, Abrutyn E, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Feldman RS, Stolley PD, Levison ME, Korzeniowski OM, Kaye D. Dental and cardiac risk factors for infective endocarditis: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:761 769. 3. Durack DT. Prevention of infective endocarditis. N Engl J Med. 1995; 332:38 44. 4. Durack DT. Antibiotics for prevention of endocarditis during dentistry: time to scale back? Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:829 831. 5. Lockhart PB, Brennan MT, Fox PC, Norton HJ, Jernigan DB, Strausbaugh LJ. Decision-making on the use of antimicrobial pro- phylaxis for dental procedures: a survey of infectious disease consultants and review. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1621 1626. 6. Jones TD, Baumgartner L, Bellows MT, Breese BB, Kuttner AG, McCarty M, Rammelkamp CH (Committee on Prevention of Rheumatic Fever and Bacterial Endocarditis, American Heart Association). Pre- vention of rheumatic fever and bacterial endocarditis through control of streptococcal infections. Circulation. 1955;11:317 320. 7.


Pre- vention of rheumatic fever and bacterial endocarditis through control of streptococcal infections. Circulation. 1955;11:317 320. 7. Rammelkamp CH Jr, Breese BB, Griffeath HI, Houser HB, Kaplan MH, Kuttner AG, McCarty M, Stollerman GH, Wannamaker LW (Committee on Prevention of Rheumatic Fever and Bacterial Endocarditis, American Heart Association). Prevention of rheumatic fever and bacterial endo- carditis through control of streptococcal infections. Circulation. 1957; 15:154 158. 8. Committee on Prevention of Rheumatic Fever and Bacterial Endo- carditis, American Heart Association. Prevention of rheumatic fever and bacterial endocarditis through control of streptococcal infections. Cir- culation. 1960;21:151 155. 9. Wannamaker LW, Denny FW, Diehl A, Jawetz E, Kirby WMM, Markowitz M, McCarty M, Mortimer EA, Paterson PY, Perry W, Ram- melkamp CH Jr, Stollerman GH (Committee on Prevention of Rheumatic Fever and Bacterial Endocarditis, American Heart Association). Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Circulation. 1965;31:953 954. 10. Rheumatic Fever Committee and the Committee on Congenital Cardiac Defects, American Heart Association. Prevention of bacterial endo- carditis. Circulation. 1972;46:S3 S6. 11. Kaplan EL, Anthony BF, Bisno A, Durack D, Houser H, Millard HD, Sanford J, Shulman ST, Stollerman M, Taranta A, Wenger N (Committee on Rheumatic Fever and Bacterial Endocarditis, American Heart Association). Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Circulation. 1977;56:139A 143A. 12. Shulman ST, Amren DP, Bisno AL, Dajani AS, Durack DT, Gerber MA, Kaplan EL, Millard HD, Sanders WE, Schwartz RH, Watanaku- nakorn C (Committee on Rheumatic Fever and Infective Endocarditis, American Heart Association). Prevention of bacterial endocarditis: a statement for health professionals by the Committee on Rheumatic Fever and Infective Endocarditis of the Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young. Circulation. 1984;70:1123A 1127A. 13. Dajani AS, Bisno AL, Chung KJ, Durack DT, Freed M, Gerber MA, Karchmer AW, Millard HD, Rahimtoola S, Shulman ST, Watanaku- nakorn C, Taubert KA.


Dajani AS, Bisno AL, Chung KJ, Durack DT, Freed M, Gerber MA, Karchmer AW, Millard HD, Rahimtoola S, Shulman ST, Watanaku- nakorn C, Taubert KA. Prevention of bacterial endocarditis: recommen- dations by the American Heart Association. JAMA. 1990;264: 2919 2922. 14. Selton-Suty C, Duval X, Brochet E, Doco-Lecompte T, Hoen B, Delahaye E, Leport C, Danchin N. New French recommendations for the prophylaxis of infectious endocarditis [in French]. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 2004;97:626 631. 15. Gould FK, Elliott TS, Foweraker J, Fulford M, Perry JD, Robert GJ, Sandoe JA, Watkin RW. Guidelines for the prevention of endocarditis: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy: authors response. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57: 1035 1042. 16. Ashrafian H, Bogle RG. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for endocarditis: emotion or science? Heart. 2007;93:5 6. 17. Burnette-Curley D, Wells V, Viscount H, Munro CL, Fenno JC, Fives- Taylor P, Macrina FL. FimA, a major virulence factor associated with Streptococcus parasanguis endocarditis. Infect Immun. 1995;63: 4669 4674. 18. Viscount HB, Munro CL, Burnette-Curley D, Peterson DL, Macrina FL. Immunization with FimA protects against Streptococcus parasanguis endocarditis in rats. Infect Immun. 1997;65:994 1002. 19. Kitten T, Munro CL, Wang A, Macrina FL. Vaccination with FimA from Streptococcus parasanguis protects rats from endocarditis caused by other viridans streptococci. Infect Immun. 2002;70:422 425. 20. Durack DT, Beeson PB. Experimental bacterial endocarditis, II: survival of a bacteria in endocardial vegetations. Br J Exp Pathol. 1972;53:50 53. 21. Fowler VG, Scheld WM, Bayer AS. Endocarditis and intravascular infections. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, eds. Principles and Practices of Infectious Diseases. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005:975 1021. 22. Osler W. Gulstonian lectures on malignant endocarditis. lecture I, and lecture II Lancet. 1885;1:415 418, 459 464. 23. Okell CC, Elliott SD.


lecture I, and lecture II Lancet. 1885;1:415 418, 459 464. 23. Okell CC, Elliott SD. Bacteraemia and oral sepsis: with special reference to the aetiology of subacute endocarditis. Lancet. 1935;2:869 872. Reviewer Disclosures Reviewer Employment Research Grant Other Research Support Speakers Bureau/ Honoraria Expert Witness Ownership Interest Consultant/ Advisory Board Other Thomas Bashore Duke University Medical Center None None None None None None None Arnold Bayer University of California, Los Angeles Titan NIH Cubist June Baker Laird at McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP (Denver, Colo)* None Pfizer* None Donald Falace University of Kentucky None None None None None None None Michael Freed Boston Children s Hospital None None None None None None None Welton Gersony Children s Hospital of New York None None None None None None None Loren Hiratzka Bethesda North Hospital None None None None None None None Patrick O Gara Brigham & Women s Hospital None None None None None None None Lauren L. Patton University of North Carolina None None None None None None None Catherine L. Webb Northwestern University None None None None Amgen None None This table represents the relationships of reviewers that may be perceived as actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest as reported on the Disclosure Questionnaire, which all reviewers are required to complete and submit. A relationship is considered to be Significant if (1) the person receives $10 000 or more during any 12-month period, or 5% or more of the person s gross income; or (2) the person owns 5% or more of the voting stock or share of the entity or owns $10 000 or more of the fair market value of the entity. A relationship is considered to be Modest if it is less than Significant under the preceding definition. *Modest. Significant.


A relationship is considered to be Modest if it is less than Significant under the preceding definition. *Modest. Significant. Wilson et al Prevention of Infective Endocarditis 1751 24. Lockhart PB, Durack DT. Oral microflora as a cause of endocarditis and other distant site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1999;13: 833 850, vi. 25. Roberts GJ, Holzel HS, Sury MR, Simmons NA, Gardner P, Longhurst P. Dental bacteremia in children. Pediatr Cardiol. 1997;18:24 27. 26. Pallasch TJ, Slots J. Antibiotic prophylaxis and the medically com- promised patient. Periodontol 2000. 1996;10:107 138. 27. Lockhart PB. The risk for endocarditis in dental practice. Periodontol 2000. 2000;23:127 135. 28. Cobe HM. Transitory bacteremia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1954;7:609 615. 29. Sconyers JR, Crawford JJ, Moriarty JD. Relationship of bacteremia to toothbrushing in patients with periodontitis. J Am Dent Assoc. 1973;87: 616 622. 30. Forner L, Larsen T, Kilian M, Holmstrup P. Incidence of bacteremia after chewing, tooth brushing and scaling in individuals with periodontal inflammation. J Clin Periodontol. 2006;33:401 407. 31. Rise E, Smith JF, Bell J. Reduction of bacteremia after oral manipu- lations. Arch Otolaryngol. 1969;90:198 201. 32. Schlein RA, Kudlick EM, Reindorf CA, Gregory J, Royal GC. Tooth- brushing and transient bacteremia in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;99:466 472. 33. Faden HS. Letter: dental procedures and bacteremia. Ann Intern Med. 1974;81:274. 34. Round H, Kirkpatrick HJR, Hails CG. Further investigations on bacte- riological infections of the mouth. Proc R Soc Med. 1936;29:1552 1556. 35. Felix JE, Rosen S, App GR. Detection of bacteremia after the use of an oral irrigation device in subjects with periodontitis. J Periodontol. 1971; 42:785 787. 36. O Leary TJ, Shafer WG, Swenson HM, Nesler DC, Van Dorn PR.


O Leary TJ, Shafer WG, Swenson HM, Nesler DC, Van Dorn PR. Possible penetration of crevicular tissue from oral hygiene procedures, I: use of oral irrigating devices. J Periodontol. 1970;41:158 162. 37. Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, Smith GL, Dzink JL. Difficulties encountered in the search for the etiologic agents of destructive peri- odontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol. 1987;14:588 593. 38. Tanner A, Maiden MF, Paster BJ, Dewhirst FE. The impact of 16S ribosomal RNA-based phylogeny on the taxonomy of oral bacteria. Periodontol 2000. 1994;5:26 51. 39. Paster BJ, Boches SK, Galvin JL, Ericson RE, Lau CN, Levanos VA, Sahasrabudhe A, Dewhirst FE. Bacterial diversity in human subgingival plaque. J Bacteriol. 2001;183:3770 3783. 40. Aas JA, Paster BJ, Stokes LN, Olsen I, Dewhirst FE. Defining the normal bacterial flora of the oral cavity. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43: 5721 5732. 41. Pallasch TJ. Antibiotic prophylaxis: problems in paradise. Dent Clin North Am. 2003;47:665 679. 42. Hillman JD, Socransky SS, Shivers M. The relationships between strep- tococcal species and periodontopathic bacteria in human dental plaque. Arch Oral Biol. 1985;30:791 795. 43. Roberts GJ, Jaffray EC, Spratt DA, Petrie A, Greville C, Wilson M, Lucas VS. Duration, prevalence and intensity of bacteraemia after dental extractions in children. Heart. 2006;92:1274 1277. 44. Lucas VS, Lytra V, Hassan T, Tatham H, Wilson M, Roberts GJ. Com- parison of lysis filtration and an automated blood culture system (BACTEC) for detection, quantification, and identification of odon- togenic bacteremia in children. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:3416 3420. 45. Lockhart PB, Schmidtke MA. Antibiotic considerations in medically compromised patients. Dent Clin North Am. 1994;38:381 402. 46. Overholser CD, Moreillon P, Glauser MP. Experimental endocarditis following dental extractions in rats with periodontitis [published cor- rection appears in J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989;47:215]. J Oral Max- illofac Surg. 1988;46:857 861. 47.


Experimental endocarditis following dental extractions in rats with periodontitis [published cor- rection appears in J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989;47:215]. J Oral Max- illofac Surg. 1988;46:857 861. 47. Baltch AL, Schaffer C, Hammer MC, Sutphen NT, Smith RP, Conroy J, Shayegani M. Bacteremia following dental cleaning in patients with and without penicillin prophylaxis. Am Heart J. 1982;104:1335 1339. 48. Baltch AL, Pressman HL, Schaffer C, Smith RP, Hammer MC, Shayegani M, Michelsen P. Bacteremia in patients undergoing oral procedures: study following parenteral antimicrobial prophylaxis as rec- ommended by the American Heart Association, 1977. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:1084 1088. 49. Coffin F, Thompson RE. Factors influencing bacteraemia following dental extraction. Lancet. 1956;271:654 656. 50. Heimdahl A, Hall G, Hedberg M, Sandberg H, Soder PO, Tuner K, Nord CE. Detection and quantitation by lysis-filtration of bacteremia after dif- ferent oral surgical procedures. J Clin Microbiol. 1990;28:2205 2209. 51. Lucartorto FM, Franker CK, Maza J. Postscaling bacteremia in HIV- associated gingivitis and periodontitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992;73:550 554. 52. Lockhart PB. An analysis of bacteremias during dental extractions: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of chlorhexidine. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:513 520. 53. Lockhart PB, Brennan MT, Kent ML, Norton HJ, Weinrib DA. Impact of amoxicillin prophylaxis on the incidence, nature, and duration of bacteremia in children after intubation and dental procedures. Circu- lation. 2004;109:2878 2884. 54. Lazansky JP, Robinson L, Rodofsky L. Factors influencing the incidence of bacteremias following surgical procedures in the oral cavity. J Dent Res. 1949;28:533 543. 55. Bender IB, Montgomery S. Nonsurgical endodontic procedures for the patient at risk for infective endocarditis and other systemic disorders. J Endod. 1986;12:400 407. 56. Conner HD, Haberman S, Collings CK, Winford TE. Bacteremias fol- lowing periodontal scaling in patients with healthy appearing gingiva. J Periodontol. 1967;38:466 472. 57. McEntegart MG, Porterfield JS.


Bacteremias fol- lowing periodontal scaling in patients with healthy appearing gingiva. J Periodontol. 1967;38:466 472. 57. McEntegart MG, Porterfield JS. Bacteraemia following dental extractions. Lancet. 1949;2:596 598. 58. Robinson L, Kraus FW, Lazansky JP, Wheeler RE, Gordon S, Johnson V. Bacteremias of dental origin, II: a study of the factors influencing occurrence and detection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1950;3: 923 936. 59. Eldirini AH. Effectiveness of epinephrine in local anesthetic solutions on the bacteremia following dental extraction. J Oral Ther Pharmacol. 1968;4:317 326. 60. Elliott RH, Dunbar JM. Streptococcal bacteraemia in children following dental extractions. Arch Dis Child. 1968;43:451 454. 61. Vargas B, Collings CK, Polter L, Haberman S. Effects of certain factors on bacteremias resulting from gingival resection. J Periodontal. 1959; 30:196 207. 62. Roberts GJ. Dentists are innocent! Everyday bacteremia is the real culprit: a review and assessment of the evidence that dental surgical procedures are a principal cause of bacterial endocarditis in children. Pediatr Cardiol. 1999;20:317 325. 63. Hockett RN, Loesche WJ, Sodeman TM. Bacteraemia in asymptomatic human subjects. Arch Oral Biol. 1977;22:91 98. 64. Thayer W. Studies on bacterial (infective) endocarditis. Hopkins Hosp Rep. 1926;22:1 185. 65. Okabe K, Nakagawa K, Yamamoto E. Factors affecting the occurrence of bacteremia associated with tooth extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;24:239 242. 66. Hall G, Hedstrom SA, Heimdahl A, Nord CE. Prophylactic adminis- tration of penicillins for endocarditis does not reduce the incidence of postextraction bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 1993;17:188 194. 67. Lineberger LT, De Marco TJ. Evaluation of transient bacteremia fol- lowing routine periodontal procedures. J Periodontol. 1973;44:757 762. 68. Witzenberger T, O Leary TJ, Gillette WB. Effect of a local germicide on the occurrence of bacteremia during subgingival scaling. J Periodontol. 1982;53:172 179. 69.


Effect of a local germicide on the occurrence of bacteremia during subgingival scaling. J Periodontol. 1982;53:172 179. 69. Rogosa M, Hampp EG, Nevin TA, Wagner HN Jr, Driscoll EJ, Baer PN. Blood sampling and cultural studies in the detection of postoperative bacteremias. J Am Dent Assoc. 1960;60:171 180. 70. Bandt CL, Korn NA, Schaffer EM. Bacteremias from ultrasonic and hand instrumentation. J Periodontol. 1964;35:214 215. 71. De Leo AA, Schoenknecht FD, Anderson MW, Peterson JC. The incidence of bacteremia following oral prophylaxis on pediatric patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1974;37:36 45. 72. Barco CT. Prevention of infective endocarditis: a review of the medical and dental literature. J Periodontol. 1991;62:510 523. 73. Bayliss R, Clarke C, Oakley C, Somerville W, Whitfield AG. The teeth and infective endocarditis. Br Heart J. 1983;50:506 512. 74. Hirsh HL, Vivino JJ, Merril A, Dowling HF. Effect of prophylactically administered penicillin on incidence of bacteremia following extraction of teeth. Arch Intern Med. 1948;81:868 878. 75. Shanson DC, Akash S, Harris M, Tadayon M. Erythromycin stearate, 1.5 g, for the oral prophylaxis of streptococcal bacteraemia in patients undergoing dental extraction: efficacy and tolerance. J Antimicrob Che- mother. 1985;15:83 90. 76. Roberts GJ, Radford P, Holt R. Prophylaxis of dental bacteraemia with oral amoxycillin in children. Br Dent J. 1987;162:179 182. 77. Hall G, Heimdahl A, Nord CE. Effects of prophylactic administration of cefaclor on transient bacteremia after dental extraction. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;15:646 649. 78. Hall G, Heimdahl A, Nord CE. Bacteremia after oral surgery and antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29:1 8; quiz 9 10. 79. Macfarlane TW, Ferguson MM, Mulgrew CJ. Post-extraction bacter- aemia: role of antiseptics and antibiotics. Br Dent J. 1984;156:179 181. 80.


Post-extraction bacter- aemia: role of antiseptics and antibiotics. Br Dent J. 1984;156:179 181. 80. Oliver R, Roberts GJ, Hooper L. Penicillins for the prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis in dentistry. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004: CD003813. 81. Guntheroth WG. How important are dental procedures as a cause of infective endocarditis? Am J Cardiol. 1984;54:797 801. 82. Everett ED, Hirschmann JV. Transient bacteremia and endocarditis prophylaxis: a review. Medicine (Baltimore). 1977;56:61 77. 83. Horstkotte D, Rosin H, Friedrichs W, Loogen F. Contribution for choosing the optimal prophylaxis of bacterial endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 1987;8(supp J):379 381. 84. Imperiale TF, Horwitz RI. Does prophylaxis prevent postdental infective endocarditis? A controlled evaluation of protective efficacy. Am J Med. 1990;88:131 136. 85. van der Meer JT, Thompson J, Valkenburg HA, Michel MF. Epidemi- ology of bacterial endocarditis in The Netherlands, II: antecedent pro- cedures and use of prophylaxis. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:1869 1873. 86. Van der Meer JT, Van Wijk W, Thompson J, Vandenbroucke JP, Valkenburg HA, Michel MF. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of native-valve endocarditis. Lancet. 1992;339:135 139. 87. van der Meer JT, van Wijk W, Thompson J, Valkenburg HA, Michel MF. Awareness of need and actual use of prophylaxis: lack of patient compliance in the prevention of bacterial endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1992;29:187 194. 88. Duval X, Alla F, Hoen B, Danielou F, Larrieu S, Delahaye F, Leport C, Briancon S. Estimated risk of endocarditis in adults with predisposing cardiac conditions undergoing dental procedures with or without anti- biotic prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:e102 e107. 89. Starkebaum M, Durack D, Beeson P. The incubation period of sub- acute bacterial endocarditis. Yale J Biol Med. 1977;50:49 58. 90. Steckelberg JM, Wilson WR. Risk factors for infective endocarditis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1993;7:9 19. 91. Pallasch TJ, Wahl MJ.


Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1993;7:9 19. 91. Pallasch TJ, Wahl MJ. Focal infection: new age or ancient history? Endodontic Topics. 2003;4:32 45. 92. Idsoe O, Guthe T, Willcox RR, de Weck AL. Nature and extent of penicillin side-reactions, with particular reference to fatalities from ana- phylactic shock. Bull World Health Organ. 1968;38:159 188. 93. Ahlstedt S. Penicillin allergy: can the incidence be reduced? Allergy. 1984;39:151 164. 94. Agha Z, Lofgren RP, VanRuiswyk JV. Is antibiotic prophylaxis for bac- terial endocarditis cost-effective? Med Decis Making. 2005;25:308 320. 95. Kelkar PS, Li JT. Cephalosporin allergy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345: 804 809. 96. Guay DR, Patterson DR, Seipman N, Craft JC. Overview of the toler- ability profile of clarithromycin in preclinical and clinical trials. Drug Saf. 1993;8:350 364. 97. Mazur N, Greenberger PA, Regalado J. Clindamycin hypersensitivity appears to be rare. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1999;82:443 445. 98. Bombassaro AM, Wetmore SJ, John MA. Clostridium difficile colitis following antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures. J Can Dent Assoc. 2001;67:20 22. 99. Tleyjeh IM, Steckelberg JM, Murad HS, Anavekar NS, Ghomrawi HM, Mirzoyev Z, Moustafa SE, Hoskin TL, Mandrekar JN, Wilson WR, Baddour LM. Temporal trends in infective endocarditis: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. JAMA. 2005;293:3022 3028. 100. Griffin MR, Wilson WR, Edwards WD, O Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Infective endocarditis: Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1950 through 1981. JAMA. 1985;254:1199 1202. 101. Durack DT, Petersdorf RG. Changes in the epidemiology of endocarditis. Paper presented at: Infective Endocarditis: An American Heart Association Symposium; held May 14 15, 1976. In: AHA Monograph #52, 1977. 102. Delahaye F, Goulet V, Lacassin F, et al. Characteristics of infective endo- carditis in France in 1991: a 1-year survey. Eur Heart J. 1995;16:394 401. 103.


Characteristics of infective endo- carditis in France in 1991: a 1-year survey. Eur Heart J. 1995;16:394 401. 103. Hoen B, Alla F, Selton-Suty C, Beguinot I, Bouvet A, Briancon S, Casalta JP, Danchin N, Delahaye F, Etienne J, Le Moing V, Leport C, Mainardi JL, Ruimy R, Vandenesch F; Association pour l Etude et la Prevention de l Endocardite Infectieuse (AEPEI) Study Group. Changing profile of infective endocarditis: results of a 1-year survey in France. JAMA. 2002;288:75 81. 104. Mylonakis E, Calderwood SB. Infective endocarditis in adults. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1318 1330. 105. Gersony WM, Hayes CJ, Driscoll DJ, Keane JF, Kidd L, O Fallon WM, Pieroni DR, Wolfe RR, Weidman WH. Bacterial endocarditis in patients with aortic stenosis, pulmonary stenosis, or ventricular septal defect. Circulation. 1993;87(suppl):I-121 I-126. 106. Wilson WR, Jaumin PM, Danielson GK, Giuliani ER, Washington JA II, Geraci JE. Prosthetic valve endocarditis. Ann Intern Med. 1975;82:751 756. 107. Baddour LM, Wilson WR. Infections of prosthetic valves and other cardio- vascular devices. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005:1022 1044. 108. Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG Jr, Bolger AF, Levison ME, Ferrieri P, Gerber MA, Tani LY, Gewitz MH, Tong DC, Steckelberg JM, Baltimore RS, Shulman ST, Burns JC, Falace DA, Newburger JW, Pallasch TJ, Takahashi M, Taubert KA; Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; American Heart Association; Infectious Diseases Society of America.


Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG Jr, Bolger AF, Levison ME, Ferrieri P, Gerber MA, Tani LY, Gewitz MH, Tong DC, Steckelberg JM, Baltimore RS, Shulman ST, Burns JC, Falace DA, Newburger JW, Pallasch TJ, Takahashi M, Taubert KA; Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; American Heart Association; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infective endo- carditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of compli- cations: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Car- diovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Car- diology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America [published correction appears in Circulation. 2005;112:2373]. Circulation. 2005;111:e394 e434. 109. Wilson WR, Danielson GK, Giuliani ER, Geraci JE. Prosthetic valve endocarditis. Mayo Clin Proc. 1982;57:155 161. 110. Wilson WR, Geraci JE, Wilkowske CJ, Washington JA II. Short-term intramuscular therapy with procaine penicillin plus streptomycin for infective endocarditis due to viridans streptococci. Circulation. 1978; 57:1158 1161. 111. Anderson DJ, Olaison L, McDonald JR, Miro JM, Hoen B, Selton-Suty C, Doco-Lecompte T, Abrutyn E, Habib G, Eykyn S, Pappas PA, Fowler VG, Sexton DJ, Almela M, Corey GR, Cabell CH. Enterococcal pros- thetic valve infective endocarditis: report of 45 episodes from the Inter- national Collaboration on Endocarditis-merged database. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005;24:665 670. 112. Chu VH, Cabell CH, Abrutyn E, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miro JM, Olaison L, Stryjewski ME, Pappas P, Anstrom KJ, Eykyn S, Habib G, Benito N, Fowler VG Jr; International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database Study Group.


Chu VH, Cabell CH, Abrutyn E, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miro JM, Olaison L, Stryjewski ME, Pappas P, Anstrom KJ, Eykyn S, Habib G, Benito N, Fowler VG Jr; International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database Study Group. Native valve endocarditis due to coagulase-negative staphylococci: report of 99 episodes from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1527 1530. 113. Lalani T, Kanafani ZA, Chu VH, Moore L, Corey GR, Pappas P, Woods CW, Cabell CH, Hoen B, Selton-Suty C, Doco-Lecompte T, Chirouze C, Raoult D, Miro JM, Mestres CA, Olaison L, Eykyn S, Abrutyn E, Fowler VG Jr; The International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database Study Group. Prosthetic valve endocarditis due to coagulase-negative staph- ylococci: findings from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006;25:365 368. 114. McDonald JR, Olaison L, Anderson DJ, Hoen B, Miro JM, Eykyn S, Abrutyn E, Fowler VG Jr, Habib G, Selton-Suty C, Pappas PA, Cabell CH, Corey GR, Marco F, Sexton DJ. Enterococcal endocarditis: 107 cases from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis Merged Database. Am J Med. 2005;118:759 766. 115. Sexton DJ, Tenenbaum MJ, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Tice AD, Gilbert D, Dismukes W, Drew RH, Durack DT; Endocarditis Treatment Consortium Group. Ceftriaxone once daily for four weeks compared with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin once daily for two weeks for treatment of endocarditis due to penicillin-susceptible streptococci. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27:1470 1474. 116. Francioli P, Etienne J, Hoigne R, Thys JP, Gerber A. Treatment of streptococcal endocarditis with a single daily dose of ceftriaxone sodium for 4 weeks: efficacy and outpatient treatment feasibility. JAMA. 1992; 267:264 267. 117. Wilson WR, Wilkowske CJ, Wright AJ, Sande MA, Geraci JE. Treatment of streptomycin-susceptible and streptomycin-resistant enterococcal endocarditis. Ann Intern Med. 1984;100:816 823. 118.


Treatment of streptomycin-susceptible and streptomycin-resistant enterococcal endocarditis. Ann Intern Med. 1984;100:816 823. 118. Mansur AJ, Dal Bo CM, Fukushima JT, Issa VS, Grinberg M, Pomer- antzeff PM. Relapses, recurrences, valve replacements, and mortality Wilson et al Prevention of Infective Endocarditis 1753 during the long-term follow-up after infective endocarditis. Am Heart J. 2001;141:78 86. 119. Baddour LM. Twelve-year review of recurrent native-valve infective endocarditis: a disease of the modern antibiotic era. Rev Infect Dis. 1988;10:1163 1170. 120. Chu VH, Sexton DJ, Cabell CH, Reller LB, Pappas PA, Singh RK, Fowler VG Jr, Corey GR, Aksoy O, Woods CW. Repeat infective endocarditis: differentiating relapse from reinfection. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:406 409. 121. Welton DE, Young JB, Gentry WO, Raizner AE, Alexander JK, Chahine RA, Miller RR. Recurrent infective endocarditis: analysis of predisposing factors and clinical features. Am J Med. 1979;66:932 938. 122. Levison ME, Kaye D, Mandell GL, Hook EW. Characteristics of patients with multiple episodes of bacterial endocarditis. JAMA. 1970; 211:1355 1357. 123. Renzulli A, Carozza A, Romano G, De Feo M, Della Corte A, Gregorio R, Cotrufo M. Recurrent infective endocarditis: a multivariate analysis of 21 years of experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:39 43. 124. Erbel R, Liu F, Ge J, Kupferwasser I. Identification of high-risk sub- groups in infective endocarditis and the role of echocardiography. Eur Heart J. 1995;16:588 602. 125. Kaplan EL, Rich H, Gersony W, Manning J. A collaborative study of infective endocarditis in the 1970s: emphasis on infections in patients who have undergone cardiovascular surgery. Circulation. 1979;59:327 335. 126. Coward K, Tucker N, Darville T. Infective endocarditis in Arkansan children from 1990 through 2002. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003;22: 1048 1052. 127. Saiman L, Prince A, Gersony WM. Pediatric infective endocarditis in the modern era. J Pediatr. 1993;122:847 853. 128. Dodo H, Child JS.


Pediatric infective endocarditis in the modern era. J Pediatr. 1993;122:847 853. 128. Dodo H, Child JS. Infective endocarditis in congenital heart disease. Cardiol Clin. 1996;14:383 392. 129. Martin JM, Neches WH, Wald ER. Infective endocarditis: 35 years of experience at a children s hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;24:669 675. 130. Parras F, Bouza E, Romero J, Buzon L, Quero M, Brito J, Vellibre D. Infectious endocarditis in children. Pediatr Cardiol. 1990;11:77 81. 131. Takeda S, Nakanishi T, Nakazawa M. A 28-year trend of infective endocarditis associated with congenital heart diseases: a single institute experience. Pediatr Int. 2005;47:392 396. 132. Ferrieri P, Gewitz MH, Gerber MA, Newburger JW, Dajani AS, Shulman ST, Wilson W, Bolger AF, Bayer A, Levison ME, Pallasch TJ, Gage TW, Taubert KA; Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease of the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young. Unique features of infective endocarditis in childhood. Circulation. 2002;105:2115 2126. 133. Ishiwada N, Niwa K, Tateno S, Yoshinaga M, Terai M, Nakazawa M; for The Japanese Society of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Joint Working Groups for Guidelines for Prophylaxis, Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease. Causative organism influences clinical profile and outcome of infective endocarditis in pediatric patients and adults with congenital heart disease. Circ J. 2005;69:1266 1270. 134. Han YM, Gu X, Titus JL, Rickers C, Bass JL, Urness M, Amplatz K. New self-expanding patent foramen ovale occlusion device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;47:370 376. 135. Prabhu RM, Piper KE, Baddour LM, Steckelberg JM, Wilson WR, Patel R. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns among viridans group strepto- coccal isolates from infective endocarditis patients from 1971 to 1986 and 1994 to 2002. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:4463 4465. 136. Doern GV, Ferraro MJ, Brueggemann AB, Ruoff KL.


2004;48:4463 4465. 136. Doern GV, Ferraro MJ, Brueggemann AB, Ruoff KL. Emergence of high rates of antimicrobial resistance among viridans group streptococci in the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;40:891 894. 137. Diekema DJ, Beach ML, Pfaller MA, Jones RN; SENTRY Participants Group. Antimicrobial resistance in viridans group streptococci among patients with and without the diagnosis of cancer in the USA, Canada and Latin America. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2001;7:152 157. 138. Groppo FC, Castro FM, Pacheco AB, Motta RH, Filho TR, Ramacciato JC, Florio FM, Meechan JG. Antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureus and oral streptococci strains from high-risk endocarditis patients. Gen Dent. 2005;53:410 413. 139. Teng LJ, Hsueh PR, Chen YC, Ho SW, Luk KT. Antimicrobial suscep- tibility of viridans group streptococci in Taiwan with an emphasis on the high rates of resistance to penicillin and macrolides in Streptococcus oralis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998;41:621 627. 140. Tuohy M, Washington JA. Antimicrobial susceptibility of viridans group streptococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1997;29:277 280. 141. Seppala H, Haanpera M, Al-Juhaish M, Jarvinen H, Jalava J, Huovinen P. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns and macrolide resistance genes of viridans group streptococci from normal flora. J Antimicrob Che- mother. 2003;52:636 644. 142. Marron A, Carratala J, Alcaide F, Fernandez-Sevilla A, Gudiol F. High rates of resistance to cephalosporins among viridans-group streptococci causing bacteraemia in neutropenic cancer patients. J Antimicrob Che- mother. 2001;47:87 91. 143. Wu JJ, Lin KY, Hsueh PR, Liu JW, Pan HI, Sheu SM. High incidence of erythromycin-resistant streptococci in Taiwan. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:844 846. 144. King A, Bathgate T, Phillips I. Erythromycin susceptibility of viridans streptococci from the normal throat flora of patients treated with azithromycin or clarithromycin. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2002;8:85 92. 145.


King A, Bathgate T, Phillips I. Erythromycin susceptibility of viridans streptococci from the normal throat flora of patients treated with azithromycin or clarithromycin. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2002;8:85 92. 145. Strom BL, Abrutyn E, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Feldman RS, Stolley PD, Levison ME, Korzeniowski OM, Kaye D. Risk factors for infective endocarditis: oral hygiene and nondental exposures. Circulation. 2000; 102:2842 2848. 146. Fridkin SK, Gaynes RP. Antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units. Clin Chest Med. 1999;20:303 316, viii. 147. Shay DK, Maloney SA, Montecalvo M, Banerjee S, Wormser GP, Arduino MJ, Bland LA, Jarvis WR. Epidemiology and mortality risk of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bloodstream infections. J Infect Dis. 1995;172:993 1000. 148. Harbarth S, Rutschmann O, Sudre P, Pittet D. Impact of methicillin resistance on the outcome of patients with bacteremia caused by Staph- ylococcus aureus. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:182 189. 149. Soufir L, Timsit JF, Mahe C, Carlet J, Regnier B, Chevret S. Attrib- utable morbidity and mortality of catheter-related septicemia in critically ill patients: a matched, risk-adjusted, cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:396 401. 150. Lucas GM, Lechtzin N, Puryear DW, Yau LL, Flexner CW, Moore RD. Vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible enterococcal bac- teremia: comparison of clinical features and outcomes. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26:1127 1133. 151. Pfaller MA, Jones RN, Doern GV, Sader HS, Kugler KC, Beach ML; for the SENTRY Participants Group. Survey of blood stream infections attributable to gram-positive cocci: frequency of occurrence and anti- microbial susceptibility of isolates collected in 1997 in the United States, Canada, and Latin America from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Sur- veillance Program. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;33:283 297. 152.


Survey of blood stream infections attributable to gram-positive cocci: frequency of occurrence and anti- microbial susceptibility of isolates collected in 1997 in the United States, Canada, and Latin America from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Sur- veillance Program. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;33:283 297. 152. Baddour LM, Bettmann MA, Bolger AF, Epstein AE, Ferrieri P, Gerber MA, Gewitz MH, Jacobs AK, Levison ME, Newburger JW, Pallasch TJ, Wilson WR, Baltimore RS, Falace DA, Shulman ST, Tani LY, Taubert KA; American Heart Association. Nonvalvular cardiovascular device- related infections. Circulation. 2003;108:2015 2031. 153. Sherman-Weber S, Axelrod P, Suh B, Rubin S, Beltramo D, Manacchio J, Furukawa S, Weber T, Eisen H, Samuel R. Infective endocarditis following orthotopic heart transplantation: 10 cases and a review of the literature. Transpl Infect Dis. 2004;6:165 170.


Cardiovascular disease: risk assessment and reduction, including lipid modification Clinical guideline NICE 2023. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights (https://www.nice.org.uk/terms-and- conditions#notice-of-rights). Last updated 10 February 2023 Your responsibility The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals and practitioners are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or the people using their service. It is not mandatory to apply the recommendations, and the guideline does not override the responsibility to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual, in consultation with them and their families and carers or guardian. All problems (adverse events) related to a medicine or medical device used for treatment or in a procedure should be reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency using the Yellow Card Scheme. Local commissioners and providers of healthcare have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual professionals and people using services wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with complying with those duties. Commissioners and providers have a responsibility to promote an environmentally sustainable health and care system and should assess and reduce the environmental impact of implementing NICE recommendations wherever possible. Contents Overview 4 Who is it for?


Commissioners and providers have a responsibility to promote an environmentally sustainable health and care system and should assess and reduce the environmental impact of implementing NICE recommendations wherever possible. Contents Overview 4 Who is it for? 4 1.1 Identifying and assessing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk 7 1.2 Aspirin for primary prevention of CVD 11 1.3 Lifestyle modifications for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD 11 1.4 Lipid modification therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD 15 Terms used in this guideline 25 Implementation: getting started 26 Measuring non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol when lipid profiling for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease 26 Reduction of the primary prevention threshold from 20% to 10% CVD risk as calculated by Atorvastatin for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD 28 Further resources 29 Recommendations for research 30 1 Simplifying risk assessment 30 2 Cost effectiveness using individual patient-level data 30 3 Statin therapy in older people 31 4 Lipid modification therapy in people with type 1 diabetes 31 5 Comparative effectiveness and risks of alternative doses of atorvastatin 31 Appendix A: Grouping of statins 33 Finding more information and committee details 36 Update information 37 This guideline replaces CG67 and TA94. This guideline partially replaces CG87. This guideline is the basis of QS100, QS5, QS208 and QS209. Overview This guideline covers the assessment and care of adults who are at risk of or who have cardiovascular disease (CVD), such as heart disease and stroke. It aims to help healthcare professionals identify people who are at risk of cardiovascular problems including people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. It describes the lifestyle changes people can make and how statins can be used to reduce their risk. Who is it for?


It describes the lifestyle changes people can make and how statins can be used to reduce their risk. Who is it for? Healthcare professionals People who are at risk of CVD or who have had CVD Introduction This guideline updates and replaces NICE guideline CG67 and NICE technology appraisal guidance 94. The recommendations are labelled according to when they were originally published (see update information for details). Cardiovascular disease (CVD) describes disease of the heart and blood vessels caused by the process of atherosclerosis. It is the leading cause of death in England and Wales, accounting for almost one-third of deaths according to UK National Statistics. In 2010, 180,000 people died from CVD around 80,000 of these deaths were caused by coronary heart disease and 49,000 were caused by strokes. Of the 180,000 deaths, 46,000 occurred before people were aged 75 years, and 70% of those were in men. Death rates from CVD peaked in the 1970s and 1980s but have more than halved since then. Rates have fallen more rapidly in older age groups compared with younger ones, with an approximately 50% reduction in the 55- to 64-year age group compared with a 20% reduction in men aged 35 to 44 years. Despite evidence that mortality from CVD is falling, morbidity appears to be rising. CVD has significant cost implications and was estimated to cost the NHS in England almost 6,940 million in 2003, rising to 7,880 million in 2010. CVD shows strong age dependence and predominantly affects people older than 50 years. Risk factors for CVD include non-modifiable factors such as age, sex, family history of CVD, ethnic background and modifiable risk factors such as smoking, raised blood pressure and cholesterol.


Risk factors for CVD include non-modifiable factors such as age, sex, family history of CVD, ethnic background and modifiable risk factors such as smoking, raised blood pressure and cholesterol. CVD is strongly associated with low income and social deprivation and shows a North South divide, with higher rates in the north of England. This guideline includes recommendations on risk assessment for CVD and on the use of lipid-lowering drugs. The original guideline is updated in part to allow consideration of new evidence on risk assessment tools and to reflect changes in price and availability of generic statins. NICE has produced guidance on other modifiable risk factors for CVD and this guideline should be used in conjunction with it. In this update the guideline development group recommend the use of non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol rather than low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Non-HDL cholesterol is total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol. LDL cholesterol is not directly measured but requires a calculation using a fasting sample and for triglyceride levels to be less than 4.5 mmol/litre, whereas the measurement of non-HDL cholesterol does not. For the purpose of this guideline, statins are grouped into 3 different intensity categories according to the percentage reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol they produce: low intensity if the reduction is 20% to 30% medium intensity if the reduction is 31% to 40% high intensity if the reduction is above 40%. Please see appendix A for further details. This grouping was agreed by guideline development group consensus, informed by analyses in the literature. See also the full guideline for a discussion of this grouping. Recommendations People have the right to be involved in discussions and make informed decisions about their care, as described in NICE's information on making decisions about your care.


Recommendations People have the right to be involved in discussions and make informed decisions about their care, as described in NICE's information on making decisions about your care. Making decisions using NICE guidelines explains how we use words to show the strength (or certainty) of our recommendations, and has information about prescribing medicines (including off-label use), professional guidelines, standards and laws (including on consent and mental capacity), and safeguarding. 1.1 Identifying and assessing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk Identifying people for full formal risk assessment 1.1.1 For the primary prevention of CVD in primary care, use a systematic strategy to identify people who are likely to be at high risk. [2008, 1.1.2 Prioritise people on the basis of an estimate of their CVD risk before a full formal risk assessment. Estimate their CVD risk using CVD risk factors already recorded in primary care electronic medical records. [2008] 1.1.3 People older than 40 should have their estimate of CVD risk reviewed on an ongoing basis. [2008] 1.1.4 Prioritise people for a full formal risk assessment if their estimated 10-year risk of CVD is 10% or more. [2008, amended 2014] 1.1.5 Discuss the process of risk assessment with the person identified as being at risk, including the option of declining any formal risk 1.1.6 Do not use opportunistic assessment as the main strategy in primary care to identify CVD risk in unselected people. [2008] Full formal risk assessment 1.1.7 Be aware that all CVD risk assessment tools can provide only an approximate value for CVD risk. Interpretation of CVD risk scores should always reflect informed clinical judgement. [2008] 1.1.8 Use the QRISK2 risk assessment tool to assess CVD risk for the primary prevention of CVD in people up to and including age 84 years.


[2008] 1.1.8 Use the QRISK2 risk assessment tool to assess CVD risk for the primary prevention of CVD in people up to and including age 84 years. [2014] 1.1.9 Do not use a risk assessment tool to assess CVD risk in people with type 1 diabetes. See recommendations 1.3.23, 1.3.24 and 1.3.25 for advice on treatment with statins for people with type 1 diabetes. [2014] 1.1.10 Use the QRISK2 risk assessment tool to assess CVD risk in people with 1.1.11 Do not use a risk assessment tool to assess CVD risk in people with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and/or albuminuria. These people are at increased risk of CVD. See the recommendation on advice on treatment with statins for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). [2014] People on renal replacement therapy are outside the scope of this guideline. 1.1.12 Complete as many fields of the risk assessment tool as possible. [2014] 1.1.13 Routinely record ethnicity, body mass index (BMI) and family history of premature CVD in medical records. [2008] 1.1.14 Consider socioeconomic status as an additional factor that contributes to CVD risk. [2008] 1.1.15 Do not use a risk assessment tool for people with pre-existing CVD. 1.1.16 Do not use a risk assessment tool for people who are at high risk of developing CVD because of familial hypercholesterolaemia (see NICE's guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia) or other inherited disorders of lipid metabolism. [2008, amended 2014] 1.1.17 When using the risk score to inform drug treatment decisions, particularly if it is near to the threshold for treatment, take into account other factors that: may predispose the person to premature CVD and may not be included in calculated risk scores.


[2008, amended 2014] 1.1.17 When using the risk score to inform drug treatment decisions, particularly if it is near to the threshold for treatment, take into account other factors that: may predispose the person to premature CVD and may not be included in calculated risk scores. [2008, amended 2014] 1.1.18 Recognise that standard CVD risk scores will underestimate risk in people who have additional risk because of underlying medical conditions or treatments. These groups include: people treated for HIV people with serious mental health problems people taking medicines that can cause dyslipidaemia such as antipsychotic medication, corticosteroids or immunosuppressant drugs people with autoimmune disorders such as systemic lupus erythematosus, and other systemic inflammatory disorders. [2008, amended 2014] 1.1.19 Recognise that CVD risk will be underestimated in people who are already taking antihypertensive or lipid modification therapy, or who have recently stopped smoking. Use clinical judgement to decide on further treatment of risk factors in people who are below the CVD risk threshold for treatment. [2008, amended 2014] 1.1.20 Severe obesity (BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 ) increases CVD risk. Take this into account when using risk scores to inform treatment decisions in this group (see NICE's guideline on obesity: identification, assessment and 1.1.21 Consider people aged 85 or older to be at increased risk of CVD because of age alone, particularly people who smoke or have raised blood Communication about risk assessment and treatment 1.1.22 NICE has produced guidance on the components of good patient experience in adult NHS services. These include recommendations on the communication of risk. Follow the recommendations in NICE's guideline on patient experience in adult NHS services. See also NICE's guideline on shared decision making. [2014] 1.1.23 Use everyday, jargon-free language to communicate information on risk. If technical terms are used, explain them clearly.


[2014] 1.1.23 Use everyday, jargon-free language to communicate information on risk. If technical terms are used, explain them clearly. [2008] 1.1.24 Set aside adequate time during the consultation to provide information on risk assessment and to allow any questions to be answered. Further consultation may be required. [2008] 1.1.25 Document the discussion relating to the consultation on risk assessment and the person's decision. [2008] 1.1.26 Offer people information about their absolute risk of CVD and about the absolute benefits and harms of an intervention over a 10-year period. This information should be in a form that: presents individualised risk and benefit scenarios and presents the absolute risk of events numerically and uses appropriate diagrams and text. [2008] 1.1.27 To encourage the person to participate in reducing their CVD risk: find out what, if anything, the person has already been told about their CVD risk and how they feel about it explore the person's beliefs about what determines future health (this may affect their attitude to changing risk) assess their readiness to make changes to their lifestyle (diet, physical activity, smoking and alcohol consumption), to undergo investigations and to take long-term medication assess their confidence in making changes to their lifestyle, undergoing investigations and taking medication inform them of potential future management based on current evidence and best practice involve them in developing a shared management plan check with them that they have understood what has been discussed. [2008, 1.1.28 If the person's CVD risk is at a level where intervention is recommended but they decline the offer of treatment, advise them that their CVD risk should be reassessed again in the future. Record their choice in their medical notes. [2008, amended 2014] 1.2 Aspirin for primary prevention of CVD 1.2.1 Do not routinely offer aspirin for primary prevention of CVD.


[2008, amended 2014] 1.2 Aspirin for primary prevention of CVD 1.2.1 Do not routinely offer aspirin for primary prevention of CVD. [2023] For guidance on using aspirin to prevent venous thromboembolism in over 16s in hospital, see NICE's guideline on venous thromboembolism in over 16s: reducing the risk of hospital-acquired deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. 1.3 Lifestyle modifications for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD Cardioprotective diet 1.3.1 Advise people at high risk of or with CVD to eat a diet in which total fat intake is 30% or less of total energy intake, saturated fats are 7% or less of total energy intake, intake of dietary cholesterol is less than 300 mg/ day and where possible saturated fats are replaced by mono-unsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Further information and advice can be found on the NHS Eat well webpage. [2014] 1.3.2 Advise people at high risk of or with CVD to: reduce their saturated fat intake. increase their mono-unsaturated fat intake with olive oil, rapeseed oil or spreads based on these oils and to use them in food preparation. Further information and advice on healthy cooking methods can be found on the NHS Eat well webpage. [2014] 1.3.3 Advise people at high risk of or with CVD to do all of the following: choose wholegrain varieties of starchy food reduce their intake of sugar and food products containing refined sugars including fructose eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day eat at least 2 portions of fish per week, including a portion of oily fish eat at least 4 to 5 portions of unsalted nuts, seeds and legumes per week. Further information and advice can be found on the NHS Eat well webpage.


Further information and advice can be found on the NHS Eat well webpage. 1.3.4 Advise pregnant women to limit their oily fish to no more than 2 portions per week and to avoid marlin, shark and swordfish. Further information and advice on oily fish consumption can be found on the NHS Eat well 1.3.5 Take account of a person's individual circumstances for example, drug therapy, comorbidities and other lifestyle modifications when giving dietary advice. [2014] 1.3.6 Advise and support people at high risk of or with CVD to achieve a healthy diet in line with NICE's guideline on behaviour change: general Physical activity 1.3.7 Advise people at high risk of or with CVD to do the following every week: at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic activity or a mix of moderate and vigorous aerobic activity in line with national guidance for the general population (see the UK Chief Medical Officers' physical activity guidelines for more information). [2008, amended 2014] 1.3.8 Advise people to do muscle-strengthening activities on 2 or more days a week that work all major muscle groups (legs, hips, back, abdomen, chest, shoulders and arms) in line with national guidance for the general population (see the UK Chief Medical Officers' physical activity guidelines for more information). [2014] 1.3.9 Encourage people who are unable to perform moderate-intensity physical activity because of comorbidity, medical conditions or personal circumstances to exercise at their maximum safe capacity. [2008, 1.3.10 Advice about physical activity should take into account the person's needs, preferences and circumstances.


[2008, 1.3.10 Advice about physical activity should take into account the person's needs, preferences and circumstances. Agree goals and provide the person with written information about the benefits of activity and local opportunities to be active, in line with NICE's guidelines on walking and cycling, physical activity: brief advice for adults and exercise referral Combined interventions (diet and physical activity) 1.3.11 Give advice on diet and physical activity in line with national recommendations (see the NHS Eat well webpage). [2008] Weight management 1.3.12 Offer people at high risk of or with CVD who are overweight or obese appropriate advice and support to work towards achieving and maintaining a healthy weight, in line with NICE's guideline on obesity: identification, assessment and management. [2008] Alcohol consumption 1.3.13 For advice on alcohol consumption, including binge drinking, see the UK chief medical officers' guidelines on low risk drinking. [2008] Smoking cessation 1.3.14 Advise all people who smoke to stop, in line with NICE's guideline on tobacco: preventing uptake, promoting quitting and treating dependence. 1.3.15 Offer people who want to stop smoking support and advice, and referral to an intensive support service (for example, the NHS Stop Smoking 1.3.16 If a person is unable or unwilling to accept a referral to an intensive support service, offer them pharmacotherapy in line with NICE's guideline on stop smoking interventions and services and NICE's technology appraisal guidance on varenicline for smoking cessation. Plant stanols and sterols 1.3.17 Do not advise any of the following to take plant stanols or sterols for the prevention of CVD: people who are being treated for primary prevention people who are being treated for secondary prevention people with CKD people with type 1 diabetes people with type 2 diabetes.


Plant stanols and sterols 1.3.17 Do not advise any of the following to take plant stanols or sterols for the prevention of CVD: people who are being treated for primary prevention people who are being treated for secondary prevention people with CKD people with type 1 diabetes people with type 2 diabetes. [2014] 1.4 Lipid modification therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD 1.4.1 Be aware that when deciding on lipid modification therapy for the prevention of CVD, drugs are preferred for which there is evidence in clinical trials of a beneficial effect on CVD morbidity and mortality. 1.4.2 When a decision is made to prescribe a statin use a statin of high intensity and low acquisition cost. [2014] See appendix A for statin classification. Initial lipid measurement and referral for specialist review 1.4.3 Measure both total and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol to achieve the best estimate of CVD risk. [2008] 1.4.4 Before starting lipid modification therapy for the primary prevention of CVD, take at least 1 lipid sample to measure a full lipid profile. This should include measurement of total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations. A fasting sample is not For information about implementing this recommendation, see the implementation: getting started section. 1.4.5 Use the clinical findings, lipid profile and family history to judge the likelihood of a familial lipid disorder rather than the use of strict lipid cut-off values alone. [2014] 1.4.6 Exclude possible common secondary causes of dyslipidaemia (such as excess alcohol, uncontrolled diabetes, hypothyroidism, liver disease and nephrotic syndrome) before referring for specialist review.


[2014] 1.4.6 Exclude possible common secondary causes of dyslipidaemia (such as excess alcohol, uncontrolled diabetes, hypothyroidism, liver disease and nephrotic syndrome) before referring for specialist review. [2014] 1.4.7 Consider the possibility of familial hypercholesterolaemia and investigate as described in NICE's guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia if they have: a total cholesterol concentration more than 7.5 mmol/litre and a family history of premature coronary heart disease. [2014] 1.4.8 Arrange for specialist assessment of people with a total cholesterol concentration of more than 9.0 mmol/litre or a non-HDL cholesterol concentration of more than 7.5 mmol/litre even in the absence of a first-degree family history of premature coronary heart disease. [2014] 1.4.9 Refer for urgent specialist review if a person has a triglyceride concentration of more than 20 mmol/litre that is not a result of excess alcohol or poor glycaemic control. [2014] 1.4.10 In people with a triglyceride concentration between 10 and 20 mmol/litre: repeat the triglyceride measurement with a fasting test (after an interval of 5 days, but within 2 weeks) and review for potential secondary causes of hyperlipidaemia and seek specialist advice if the triglyceride concentration remains above 10 mmol/ 1.4.11 In people with a triglyceride concentration between 4.5 and 9.9 mmol/ litre: be aware that the CVD risk may be underestimated by risk assessment tools and optimise the management of other CVD risk factors present and seek specialist advice if non-HDL cholesterol concentration is more than Statins for the prevention of CVD Recommendations in this section update and replace those in statins for the prevention of cardiovascular events (NICE technology appraisal guidance 94). There is a NICE patient decision aid to support discussions about statin therapy to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.


There is a NICE patient decision aid to support discussions about statin therapy to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke. 1.4.12 The decision whether to start statin therapy should be made after an informed discussion between the clinician and the person about the risks and benefits of statin treatment, taking into account additional factors such as potential benefits from lifestyle modifications, informed patient preference, comorbidities, polypharmacy, general frailty and life 1.4.13 Before starting statin treatment perform baseline blood tests and clinical assessment, and treat comorbidities and secondary causes of dyslipidaemia. Include all of the following in the assessment: smoking status alcohol consumption blood pressure (see NICE's guideline on hypertension) BMI or other measure of obesity (see NICE's guideline on obesity: identification, assessment and management) total cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides renal function and eGFR transaminase level (alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase) thyroid-stimulating hormone. [2014] Primary prevention 1.4.14 Before offering statin treatment for primary prevention, discuss the benefits of lifestyle modification and optimise the management of all other modifiable CVD risk factors if possible. [2014] 1.4.15 Recognise that people may need support to change their lifestyle. To help them do this, refer them to programmes such as exercise referral schemes. (See NICE's guidelines on behaviour change: individual approaches and physical activity: exercise referral schemes.) [2014] 1.4.16 Offer people the opportunity to have their risk of CVD assessed again after they have tried to change their lifestyle. [2014] 1.4.17 If lifestyle modification is ineffective or inappropriate offer statin treatment after risk assessment. [2014] 1.4.18 Offer atorvastatin 20 mg for the primary prevention of CVD to people who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk of developing CVD. Estimate the level of risk using the QRISK2 assessment tool.


Estimate the level of risk using the QRISK2 assessment tool. [2014] For information about implementing this recommendation, see implementation: getting started. 1.4.19 For people 85 years or older consider atorvastatin 20 mg as statins may be of benefit in reducing the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction. Be aware of factors that may make treatment inappropriate (see Secondary prevention 1.4.20 Start statin treatment in people with CVD with atorvastatin 80 mg. Use a lower dose of atorvastatin if any of the following apply: potential drug interactions high risk of adverse effects patient preference. [2014] In July 2014, this was an off-label use of atorvastatin. See NICE's information on prescribing medicines. For information about implementing this recommendation, see the implementation: getting started section. 1.4.21 Do not delay statin treatment in secondary prevention to manage modifiable risk factors. [2014] 1.4.22 If a person has acute coronary syndrome, do not delay statin treatment. Take a lipid sample on admission and about 3 months after the start of Primary prevention for people with type 1 diabetes 1.4.23 Consider statin treatment for the primary prevention of CVD in all adults with type 1 diabetes. [2014] 1.4.24 Offer statin treatment for the primary prevention of CVD to adults with type 1 diabetes who: are older than 40 years or have had diabetes for more than 10 years or have established nephropathy or have other CVD risk factors. [2014] 1.4.25 Start treatment for adults with type 1 diabetes with atorvastatin 20 mg. Primary prevention for people with type 2 diabetes 1.4.26 Offer atorvastatin 20 mg for the primary prevention of CVD to people with type 2 diabetes who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk of developing CVD.


[2014] 1.4.25 Start treatment for adults with type 1 diabetes with atorvastatin 20 mg. Primary prevention for people with type 2 diabetes 1.4.26 Offer atorvastatin 20 mg for the primary prevention of CVD to people with type 2 diabetes who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk of developing CVD. Estimate the level of risk using the QRISK2 assessment People with CKD 1.4.27 Offer atorvastatin 20 mg for the primary or secondary prevention of CVD to people with CKD. Increase the dose if a greater than 40% reduction in non-HDL cholesterol is not achieved (see recommendation 1.3.28) and eGFR is 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 or more. Agree the use of higher doses with a renal specialist if eGFR is less than 30 ml/ See NICE's guideline on chronic kidney disease for CKD classification. People on renal replacement therapy are outside the scope of this guideline. Follow-up of people started on statin treatment 1.4.28 Measure total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol in all people who have been started on high-intensity statin treatment (both primary and secondary prevention, including atorvastatin 20 mg for primary prevention) at 3 months of treatment and aim for a greater than 40% reduction in non-HDL cholesterol. If a greater than 40% reduction in non-HDL cholesterol is not achieved: discuss adherence and timing of dose optimise adherence to diet and lifestyle measures consider increasing the dose if started on less than atorvastatin 80 mg and the person is judged to be at higher risk because of comorbidities, risk score or using clinical judgement. [2014] 1.4.29 Provide annual medication reviews for people taking statins. Use these reviews to discuss medicines adherence and lifestyle modification and address CVD risk factors. Consider an annual non-fasting blood test for non-HDL cholesterol to inform the discussion.


Consider an annual non-fasting blood test for non-HDL cholesterol to inform the discussion. [2014] 1.4.30 Discuss with people who are stable on a low- or middle-intensity statin the likely benefits and potential risks of changing to a high-intensity statin when they have a medication review and agree with the person whether a change is needed. [2014] For information about implementing this recommendation, see the implementation: getting started section. Advice and monitoring for adverse effects 1.4.31 Advise people who are being treated with a statin: that other drugs, some foods (for example, grapefruit juice) and some supplements may interfere with statins and to always consult the patient information leaflet, a pharmacist or prescriber for advice when starting other drugs or thinking about taking supplements. [2014] 1.4.32 Remind the person to restart the statin if they stopped taking it because of drug interactions or to treat intercurrent illnesses. [2014] 1.4.33 Before offering a statin, ask the person if they have had persistent generalised unexplained muscle pain, whether associated or not with previous lipid-lowering therapy. If they have, measure creatine kinase levels. If creatine kinase levels are more than 5 times the upper limit of normal, re-measure creatine kinase after 7 days. If creatine kinase levels are still 5 times the upper limit of normal, do not start statin treatment. If creatine kinase levels are raised but less than 5 times the upper limit of normal, start statin treatment at a lower dose. [2014] 1.4.34 Advise people who are being treated with a statin to seek medical advice if they develop muscle symptoms (pain, tenderness or weakness). If this occurs, measure creatine kinase.


[2014] 1.4.34 Advise people who are being treated with a statin to seek medical advice if they develop muscle symptoms (pain, tenderness or weakness). If this occurs, measure creatine kinase. [2008] 1.4.35 If people report muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, explore other possible causes of muscle pain or weakness and raised creatine kinase if they have previously tolerated statin therapy for more than 1.4.36 Do not measure creatine kinase levels in asymptomatic people who are being treated with a statin. [2008] 1.4.37 Measure baseline liver transaminase enzymes (alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase) before starting a statin. Measure liver transaminase within 3 months of starting treatment and at 12 months, but not again unless clinically indicated. [2008] 1.4.38 Do not routinely exclude from statin therapy people who have liver transaminase levels that are raised but are less than 3 times the upper limit of normal. [2008] 1.4.39 Do not stop statins because of an increase in blood glucose level or HbA1c. (See the recommendations on assessing for risk of diabetes mellitus in NICE's guideline on preventing type 2 diabetes.) [2014] 1.4.40 Statins are contraindicated in pregnancy: Advise women of childbearing potential of the potential teratogenic risk of statins and to stop taking them if pregnancy is a possibility. Advise women planning pregnancy to stop taking statins 3 months before they attempt to conceive and to not restart them until breastfeeding is finished. Intolerance of statins 1.4.41 If a person is not able to tolerate a high-intensity statin aim to treat with the maximum tolerated dose. [2014] 1.4.42 Tell the person that any statin at any dose reduces CVD risk.


[2014] 1.4.42 Tell the person that any statin at any dose reduces CVD risk. If someone reports adverse effects when taking high-intensity statin discuss the following possible strategies with them: stopping the statin and trying again when the symptoms have resolved to check if the symptoms are related to the statin reducing the dose within the same intensity group changing the statin to a lower intensity group. [2014] 1.4.43 Seek specialist advice about options for treating people at high risk of CVD such as those with CKD, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes or genetic dyslipidaemias, and those with CVD, who are intolerant to 3 different statins. Advice can be sought for example, by telephone, virtual clinic or Adherence to statin therapy 1.4.44 Do not offer coenzyme Q10 or vitamin D to increase adherence to statin Fibrates for preventing CVD 1.4.45 Do not routinely offer fibrates for the prevention of CVD to any of the following: people who are being treated for primary prevention people who are being treated for secondary prevention people with CKD people with type 1 diabetes people with type 2 diabetes. [2014] Nicotinic acid for preventing CVD 1.4.46 Do not offer nicotinic acid (niacin) for the prevention of CVD to any of the following: people who are being treated for primary prevention people who are being treated for secondary prevention people with CKD people with type 1 diabetes people with type 2 diabetes. [2014] Bile acid sequestrants (anion exchange resins) for preventing CVD 1.4.47 Do not offer a bile acid sequestrant (anion exchange resin) for the prevention of CVD to any of the following: people who are being treated for primary prevention people who are being treated for secondary prevention people with CKD people with type 1 diabetes people with type 2 diabetes.


[2014] Bile acid sequestrants (anion exchange resins) for preventing CVD 1.4.47 Do not offer a bile acid sequestrant (anion exchange resin) for the prevention of CVD to any of the following: people who are being treated for primary prevention people who are being treated for secondary prevention people with CKD people with type 1 diabetes people with type 2 diabetes. [2014] Omega-3 fatty acid compounds for preventing CVD 1.4.48 Do not offer omega-3 fatty acid compounds for the prevention of CVD to any of the following: people who are being treated for primary prevention people who are being treated for secondary prevention people with CKD people with type 1 diabetes people with type 2 diabetes. Icosapent ethyl is an exception to this if used as described in NICE's technology appraisal guidance on icosapent ethyl with statin therapy for reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in people with raised triglycerides. 1.4.49 Tell people that there is no evidence that use of omega-3 fatty acid compounds help prevent CVD, except use of icosapent ethyl as described in NICE's technology appraisal guidance on icosapent ethyl with statin therapy. [2014] Combination therapy for preventing CVD 1.4.50 For the primary or secondary prevention of CVD, do not offer the combination of a statin with: a bile acid sequestrant (anion exchange resin), a fibrate or nicotinic acid, or an omega 3 fatty acid compound, except icosapent ethyl as described in NICE's technology appraisal guidance on icosapent ethyl with statin therapy. Ezetimibe 1.4.51 People with primary hypercholesterolaemia should be considered for ezetimibe treatment in line with NICE's technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe for treating primary heterozygous-familial and non-familial Other treatment options For other treatment options, see the NICE technology appraisal guidance on our topic page on lipid disorders.


Ezetimibe 1.4.51 People with primary hypercholesterolaemia should be considered for ezetimibe treatment in line with NICE's technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe for treating primary heterozygous-familial and non-familial Other treatment options For other treatment options, see the NICE technology appraisal guidance on our topic page on lipid disorders. Terms used in this guideline High-intensity statin The following doses for statins are high intensity, based on the percentage reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol they can produce: atorvastatin: 20 mg to 80 mg rosuvastatin: 10 mg to 40 mg simvastatin: 80 mg. Implementation: getting started This section highlights some important changes to practice that may result from implementing this guideline identified at publication in July 2014. With input from stakeholders, experts and health professionals, 3 areas have been identified that may have a big impact on practice or could be challenging to implement. However, other changes to practice may be needed to fully implement the guideline. Measuring non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol when lipid profiling for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease Potential impact of implementation Non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol is seen to be a better cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk indicator than low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. It is more accurate, more practical and cost effective. A fasting blood sample is not needed. This is more convenient for patients and may reduce the need for additional blood samples. Those requesting lipid profiles for their patients such as GPs, practice nurses and community pharmacists may need to change their practice. Laboratories may also need to change their reporting procedures. Challenges for implementation The United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service (UKNEQAS) estimated that less than 10% of laboratories included non-HDL cholesterol in their reports; however, this was primarily due to lack of demand.


Challenges for implementation The United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service (UKNEQAS) estimated that less than 10% of laboratories included non-HDL cholesterol in their reports; however, this was primarily due to lack of demand. Healthcare workers may need educating in what the non-HDL cholesterol test means, how to interpret the laboratory results, and how it compares with the previously used LDL cholesterol test. Support for implementation The Association of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine disseminated the updated guidance to their members specifically clinical scientists at the laboratories to request that they routinely include non-HDL cholesterol in their lipid profile reports. No additional equipment is needed for the non-HDL cholesterol test, other than a change to the software used when producing the report, and no extra time is needed to produce the lipid profile. Local organisations may wish to contact the laboratory they use to ensure it has this information. Lab Tests Online UK information on lipid profiling was updated to include details of the non-HDL cholesterol test. The information on this site explains what the test is, why it is carried out, what it involves and how to interpret the results. The website is a resource for both professionals and the public. Reduction of the primary prevention threshold from 20% to 10% CVD risk as calculated by QRISK2 Potential impact of implementation It is expected that there will be a reduction in the number of deaths and hospital-related admissions due to CVD events. Because the price of statins has fallen, using statins to reduce the risk of CVD at a lower threshold than NICE previously recommended is cost effective. Primary healthcare professionals may need to change their practice.


Because the price of statins has fallen, using statins to reduce the risk of CVD at a lower threshold than NICE previously recommended is cost effective. Primary healthcare professionals may need to change their practice. Challenges for implementation The number of people eligible to take statins for the primary prevention of CVD will increase because of the reduction in the treatment threshold from a 20% to a 10% 10-year risk of a CVD event. The challenge is to ensure that statin treatment is presented as a patient choice in addition to lifestyle modification to avoid unnecessarily 'medicalising' this group of people. To help patients make an informed decision, healthcare professionals will need an effective way of briefly but clearly communicating the pros and cons of the various options available. Support for implementation The guideline does not propose that statins should be used instead of the lifestyle adjustments that people at risk need to make. It encourages GPs to fully explore with their patients all the options promoted by the guidance, including lifestyle changes, blood pressure control, avoidance of diabetes and cholesterol (lipid) lowering. There is a NICE patient decision aid to support primary healthcare professionals in discussing the pros and cons of statin therapy with their patients so they can make an informed choice. Expert opinion suggests that around 20% of these people will choose not to take statins after discussions with their healthcare professional. Health practitioners may wish to refer to the lifestyle modification information in NICE's guideline on behaviour change: individual approaches. Atorvastatin for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD Potential impact of implementation Since the 2008 guideline on lipid modification was published, atorvastatin has come off- patent and is available at a reduced cost, therefore making it more cost effective.


Atorvastatin for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD Potential impact of implementation Since the 2008 guideline on lipid modification was published, atorvastatin has come off- patent and is available at a reduced cost, therefore making it more cost effective. Atorvastatin is more potent than other non-generic statins and has a lower risk of adverse interactions with other drugs. There is also greater compatibility with other cardiovascular and lipid modifying therapies. In addition, atorvastatin does not have to be taken at night, which may increase convenience. Challenges for implementation The rationale for recommending atorvastatin over other statins may not be well understood, both when starting treatment for people with a 10% CVD risk or greater and when prescribing statins for people with existing CVD. Prescribers may be uncertain about switching existing patients to atorvastatin from other statins, and may perceive there to be an impact on their workload in doing so. Support for implementation A meta-analysis of studies with statins was conducted after statins were classified into high-, medium- and low-efficacy groups based on their efficacy in lowering LDL cholesterol levels. High-efficacy statins at low acquisition cost (for example, atorvastatin 20 mg or greater) were more effective than moderate-intensity statins (simvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg) in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. This increment in therapy was cost effective, with high-intensity statin therapy reducing CVD events by an extra 9 to 12 per thousand fatal and non-fatal heart attacks and stroke events in this comparison. People admitted for acute coronary syndromes are likely to have been prescribed atorvastatin 80 mg on the basis of recommendations made in the 2008 guideline. Therefore, only people with chronic CVD would need to be considered for conversion to high-dose, high-intensity statin (atorvastatin 80 mg).


Therefore, only people with chronic CVD would need to be considered for conversion to high-dose, high-intensity statin (atorvastatin 80 mg). There is no time restriction on implementing recommendation 1.3.30 with existing patients. There is no anticipated increase in workload as discussion could take place at the time of their next annual review. Further resources There are further NICE resources that may help to support implementation. The UK National Screening Committee has agreed to reflect the 10% risk threshold in The NHS Health Check programme in line with the NICE recommendations. NICE produces indicators annually for use in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) for the UK. The process for this and the NICE menu can be found on NICE's Quality and Outcomes Framework indicator webpage. Uptake data about guideline recommendations and quality standard measures are available. Recommendations for research The guideline development group has made the following recommendations for research. The guideline development group's full set of research recommendations is in the full guideline. 1 Simplifying risk assessment What is the effectiveness of age alone and other routinely available risk factors compared with the formal structured multifactorial risk assessment to identify people at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD)? Why this is important Current risk assessment tools rely on a complex set of data derived from demographic, lifestyle, physiological and biochemical parameters. The principal determinant of CVD risk is age, and this may be sufficient to identify high-risk populations. However, focusing on age alone may result in people being missed who are at higher risk as a result of other factors that do not require access to intensive resources, such as smoking status, family history and deprivation. It is important therefore to assess age against validated simplified and complex CVD risk tools when predicting people at high risk.


It is important therefore to assess age against validated simplified and complex CVD risk tools when predicting people at high risk. 2 Cost effectiveness using individual patient-level data What is the improvement in the cost-effectiveness metrics for statin therapy in reducing CVD that can be obtained when using a complete individual patient-based outcomes meta-analysis data set compared with using published outcomes data? Why this is important This guideline development process uses published summary data from trials in a meta-analysis to inform the clinical efficacy of statins. This use of aggregate data has limitations. The use of individual patient data would allow use of time to event statistics and allow investigation of interaction with baseline risk. Such an approach can be used to validate the current approach and would provide useful information on limitations of use of summary data. 3 Statin therapy in older people What is the effectiveness of statin therapy in older people? Why this is important The UK population is ageing and atherosclerosis is an age-associated process. Few trials assessing cardiovascular outcomes have recruited many people older than 80 years yet the important effect of age on CVD risk suggests that all people in this group should be offered statin therapy. However, there is no evidence to validate the CVD benefits and side effects of statin therapy such as effect on muscle and renal function in this age group. Controversy also exists about the efficacy of statins in preventing or promoting other chronic diseases of ageing such as dementia, Parkinson's disease, or age-related macular degeneration. 4 Lipid modification therapy in people with type 1 diabetes What is the effectiveness of statins and/or other low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-lowering treatment in people with type 1 diabetes?


4 Lipid modification therapy in people with type 1 diabetes What is the effectiveness of statins and/or other low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-lowering treatment in people with type 1 diabetes? Why this is important People with type 1 diabetes have increased CVD risk derived from age, sex, glycaemia, blood pressure, renal function and lipid levels as identified in epidemiological studies. Long-term glycaemic control is associated with better outcomes but no trial has investigated the efficacy of statin therapy or other LDL-cholesterol-lowering therapies exclusively in people with type 1 diabetes. 5 Comparative effectiveness and risks of alternative doses of atorvastatin What is the clinical effectiveness and rate of adverse events of statin therapy using atorvastatin 20 mg per day compared with atorvastatin 40 mg per day and atorvastatin 80 mg per day in people without established CVD? Why this is important This guideline has established that atorvastatin 20 mg is clinically and cost effective for the primary prevention of CVD and should be recommended for those at 10% risk of cardiovascular events as assessed using the QRISK2 calculator. However, this analysis looked at the effectiveness of treatment shown by 'high-intensity' statins as a group, as it was not possible to establish the relative effectiveness of atorvastatin 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg using trial data. Trial data with clinical outcomes exists for atorvastatin 80 mg against atorvastatin 10 mg only. The rates of adverse events resulting from different doses of atorvastatin in routine clinical practice are also uncertain and would need to be considered in combination with effectiveness in assessing the relative costs and benefits of different doses of atorvastatin.


The rates of adverse events resulting from different doses of atorvastatin in routine clinical practice are also uncertain and would need to be considered in combination with effectiveness in assessing the relative costs and benefits of different doses of atorvastatin. Appendix A: Grouping of statins For the purpose of this guideline, statins are grouped into 3 different intensity categories according to the percentage reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a 20% to 30% reduction is low intensity a 31% to 40% reduction is medium intensity a reduction of more than 40% is high intensity. This grouping was agreed by guideline development group consensus, informed by analyses in the literature. See the full guideline for a discussion of this grouping. Grouping of statins used in this guideline: reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by daily dose Fluvastatin: 20 mg/day, 21% reduction 40 mg/day, 27% reduction 80 mg/day, 33% reduction Pravastatin: 10 mg/day, 20% reduction 20 mg/day, 24% reduction 40 mg/day, 29% reduction Simvastatin: 10 mg/day, 27% reduction 20 mg/day, 32% reduction 40 mg/day, 37% reduction 80 mg/day, 42% reduction Atorvastatin: 10 mg/day, 37% reduction 20 mg/day, 43% reduction 40 mg/day, 49% reduction 80 mg/day, 55% reduction Rosuvastatin: 5 mg/day, 38% reduction 10 mg/day, 43% reduction 20 mg/day, 48% reduction 40 mg/day, 53% reduction MHRA advice: there is an increased risk of myopathy associated with high dose (80 mg) simvastatin. The 80 mg dose should be considered only in patients with severe hypercholesterolaemia and high risk of cardiovascular complications who have not achieved their treatment goals on lower doses, when the benefits are expected to outweigh the potential risks. This information is from Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR (2003) Quantifying effect of statins on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 326: 1423.