OBJECTIVE: 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.
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.

OBJECTIVE: The antibiotic treatment recommended for infectious endocarditis (IE) has a low level of evidence. Our objective was to determine whether compliance with the recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) was related to lower inhospital morbidity and mortality for this disease.
METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 162 cases of IE diagnosed between 2005 and 2014. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed to determine the effect of treatment on hospital mortality.
RESULTS: There were no differences in terms of disease complications between the treatment groups. Hospital mortality was 29.2% when the treatment was adjusted to the guidelines and 28.2% when the treatment was not adjusted (OR=1.048; 95%CI: 0.442-2.484; P=.916).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the ESC guidelines does not appear to translate into a reduction in hospital morbidity and mortality due to IE when compared with alternative antibiotic treatment regimens.

Both bacteremia and infective endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus are common and severe diseases. The prognosis may darken not infrequently, especially in the presence of intracardiac devices or methicillin-resistance. Indeed, the optimization of the antimicrobial therapy is a key step in the outcome of these infections. The high rates of treatment failure and the increasing interest in the influence of vancomycin susceptibility in the outcome of infections caused by both methicillin-susceptible and -resistant isolates has led to the research of novel therapeutic schemes. Specifically, the interest raised in recent years on the new antimicrobials with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci has been also extended to infections caused by susceptible strains, which still carry the most important burden of infection. Recent clinical and experimental research has focused in the activity of new combinations of antimicrobials, their indication and role still being debatable. Also, the impact of an appropriate empirical antimicrobial treatment has acquired relevance in recent years. Finally, it is noteworthy the impact of the implementation of a systematic bundle of measures for improving the outcome. The aim of this clinical guideline is to provide an ensemble of recommendations in order to improve the treatment and prognosis of bacteremia and infective endocarditis caused by S. aureus, in accordance to the latest evidence published.

Bacteremia and infective endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus are common and severe diseases. Optimization of treatment is fundamental in the prognosis of these infections. The high rates of treatment failure and the increasing interest in the influence of vancomycin susceptibility in the outcome of infections caused by both methicillin-susceptible and -resistant isolates have led to research on novel therapeutic schemes. The interest in the new antimicrobials with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci has been extended to susceptible strains, which still carry the most important burden of infection. New combinations of antimicrobials have been investigated in experimental and clinical studies, but their role is still being debated. Also, the appropriateness of the initial empirical therapy has acquired relevance in recent years. The aim of this guideline is to update the 2009 guidelines and to provide an ensemble of recommendations in order to improve the treatment of staphylococcal bacteremia and infective endocarditis, in accordance with the latest published evidence.

This article sets out the recommendations for the prevention of infective endocarditis (IE), contained in the guidelines developed by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), from which the recommendations of the Spanish Society of Paediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease have been agreed. In recent years, there has been a considerable change in the recommendations for the prevention of IE, mainly due to the lack of evidence on the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in prevention, and the risk of the development of antibiotic resistance. The main change is a reduction of the indications for antibiotic prophylaxis, both in terms of patients and procedures considered at risk. Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations should assist health professionals in making clinical decisions in their daily practice. However, the ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be taken by the physician responsible.