Behaviour of health professionals concerning the recommendations for prophylaxis for infectious endocarditis in our setting: Are the guidelines followed?

Objectives: The prophylaxis regimens for infectious endocarditis recommended by the clinical practice guidelines have recently changed. We do not know whether the current regimens are correctly followed in our setting. Our objective was to describe the approaches of various health professionals concerning these guidelines. Material and methods: We conducted a survey in Cordoba, using a 16-item online questionnaire on this topic. We randomly selected a sample of 180 practitioners (20 cardiologists, 80 dentists and 80 primary care physicians), of whom 173 responded. Results: Half of the participants were men; 52% had more than 20 years of professional experience. Some 88.3% of the participants considered that prophylaxis of endocarditis is effective (77.8% of the cardiologists, 93.7% of the dentist; p=.086). In general, prophylaxis is performed in conditions of clearly established risk (>90% of those surveyed). However, prophylaxis is also performed in a high proportion of cases with no risk of endocarditis, varying between 30 and 60% according to the procedure (mostly the dentists, between 36 and 67%, followed by the primary care physicians, between 28 and 59%). The antibiotic regimens employed varied significantly. The primary care physicians were furthest from the recommended regimen (only 25.8% used the recommended regimen vs. 54.4% of dentists and 72.2% of cardiologists; p=.002). Conclusions: Compliance with the recommendations on prophylaxis for endocarditis should be improved in our setting. We observed a tendency, especially among noncardiologists, to "overindicate" the prophylaxis. (C) 2016 Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. and Sociedad Espanola de Medicina Interna (SEMI). All rights reserved.