The BSAC guidelines on treatment of infectious endocarditis (IE) were last published in 2004. The guidelines presented here have been updated and extended to reflect developments in diagnostics, new trial data and the availability of new antibiotics. The aim of these guidelines, which cover both native valve and prosthetic valve endocarditis, is to standardize the initial investigation and treatment of IE. An extensive review of the literature using a number of different search criteria has been carried out and cited publications used to support any changes we have made to the existing guidelines. Publications referring to in vitro or animal models have only been cited if appropriate clinical data are not available. Randomized, controlled trials suitable for the development of evidenced-based guidelines in this area are still lacking and therefore a consensus approach has again been adopted for most recommendations; however, we have attempted to grade the evidence, where possible. The guidelines have also been extended by the inclusion of sections on clinical diagnosis, echocardiography and surgery.

Infections related to implantable cardiac electronic devices (ICEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, are increasing in incidence in the USA and are likely to increase in the UK, because more devices are being implanted. These devices have both intravascular and extravascular components and infection can involve the generator, device leads and native cardiac structures or various combinations. ICED infections can be life-threatening, particularly when associated with endocardial infection, and all-cause mortality of up to 35% has been reported. Like infective endocarditis, ICED infections can be difficult to diagnose and manage. This guideline aims to (i) improve the quality of care provided to patients with ICEDs, (ii) provide an educational resource for all relevant healthcare professionals, (iii) encourage a multidisciplinary approach to ICED infection management, (iv) promote a standardized approach to the diagnosis, management, surveillance and prevention of ICED infection through pragmatic evidence-rated recommendations, and (v) advise on future research projects/audit. The guideline is intended to assist in the clinical care of patients with suspected or confirmed ICED infection in the UK, to inform local infection prevention and treatment policies and guidelines and to be used in the development of educational and training material by the relevant professional societies. The questions covered by the guideline are presented at the beginning of each section.

These guidelines have been produced following a literature review of the requirement for prophylaxis to prevent bacterial endocarditis following dental and surgical interventions. Recommendations are made based on the quality of available evidence and the consequent risk of morbidity and mortality for ‘at risk’ patients.

The area that has attracted the most controversy in recent years has been the use of antibiotics to prevent infective endocarditis. The recommendations by the American Heart Association (AHA)1 have traditionally guided the advice of the national bodies representing endoscopic practice,2 3 including the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG).4 The traditional guidance has been that patients at high risk of endocarditis, such as those with a prosthetic (ie, tissue or mechanical) valve and/or a past history of endocarditis should receive antibiotics for all endoscopic procedures. More recently the European Society of Cardiology recommended antibiotic prophylaxis to cover therapeutic endoscopy in patients with acquired valvular heart disease,5 and the British Cardiovascular Society went even further, advising antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at moderate risk of endocarditis undergoing any endoscopic procedure.6

Background: The prevalence of reported penicillin allergy (PenA) and the impact these records have on health outcomes in the UK general population are unknown. Without such data, justifying and planning enhanced allergy services is challenging.Objectives: To determine: (i) prevalence of PenA records; (ii) patient characteristics associated with PenA records; and (iii) impact of PenA records on antibiotic prescribing/health outcomes in primary care.Methods: We carried out cross-sectional/retrospective cohort studies using patient-level data from electronic health records. Cohort study: exact matching across confounders identified as affecting PenA records. Setting: English NHS general practices between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014. Participants: 2.3 million adult patients. Outcome measures: prevalence of PenA, antibiotic prescribing, mortality, MRSA infection/colonization and Clostridioides difficile infection.Results: PenA prevalence was 5.9% (IQR = 3.8%–8.2%). PenA records were more common in older people, females and those with a comorbidity, and were affected by GP practice. Antibiotic prescribing varied significantly: penicillins were prescribed less frequently in those with a PenA record [relative risk (RR) = 0.15], and macrolides (RR = 4.03), tetracyclines (RR = 1.91) nitrofurantoin (RR = 1.09), trimethoprim (RR = 1.04), cephalosporins (RR = 2.05), quinolones (RR = 2.10), clindamycin (RR = 5.47) and total number of prescriptions were increased in patients with a PenA record. Risk of re-prescription of a new antibiotic class within 28 days (RR = 1.32), MRSA infection/colonization (RR = 1.90) and death during the year subsequent to 1 April 2013 (RR = 1.08) increased in those with PenA records.Conclusions: PenA records are common in the general population and associated with increased/altered antibiotic prescribing and worse health outcomes. We estimate that incorrect PenA records affect 2.7 million people in England. Establishing true PenA status (e.g. oral challenge testing) would allow more people to be prescribed first-line antibiotics, potentially improving health outcomes.