↓ Skip to main content

Contemporary Drug Treatment of Infective Endocarditis

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Contemporary Drug Treatment of Infective Endocarditis
Published in
American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40256-013-0015-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marwa A. Sabe, Nabin K. Shrestha, Venu Menon

Abstract

Infective endocarditis (IE) occurs at a rate of approximately 0.9-6.2 per 100,000 people per year and is associated with a high morbidity and mortality despite advancements in antibiotic and surgical treatments. The general approach to the treatment of IE is initial clinical stabilization, early acquisition of blood cultures, and definitive medical and/or surgical treatment. Surgical consultation should be obtained early when indicated in order to determine the best treatment approach for each individual patient. Surgery is indicated in most cases of prosthetic valve endocarditis, Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis, fungal endocarditis, and endocarditis associated with large vegetations (≥10 mm). Initial antibiotic therapy for IE should be targeted to the culprit microorganism; however, in some cases, empiric therapy must be initiated prior to definitive culture diagnosis. Empiric antibiotics should be targeted toward the most likely pathogens, including staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci species. Here we discuss the recommended antibiotic regimens for the most common causes of IE as indicated by the American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology. In 2008, the ACC/AHA published guideline updates on the treatment of valvular heart disease, which included a focused update on endocarditis prophylaxis. According to the most recent guidelines, the number of patients who require antibiotic prophylaxis has decreased substantially. Treatment of IE should be targeted toward the causative microorganism and must be based on the type and location of valve involved (native, prosthetic, left or right sided), the clinical status of the patient, and the likelihood for clinical success. This requires a collaborative effort from multiple medical specialties including infectious disease specialists, cardiologists, and cardiothoracic surgeons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 11 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2013.
All research outputs
#18,347,414
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
#350
of 423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,951
of 192,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.