Comparison of guideline concordant antibiotic prophylaxis in Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs dental settings among those with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints.

Ramanathan S, Evans CT, Hershow RC, Calip GS, Rowan S, Hubbard C, Suda KJ. Comparison of guideline concordant antibiotic prophylaxis in Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs dental settings among those with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints. BMC infectious diseases. 2023 Jun 23; 23(1):427.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 17-039 – Improving Veteran Health by Increasing Dental Stewardship of Antibiotics and Opioids
• RCS 20-192 – Research Career Scientist Award

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: No research has been conducted to assess whether antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing differs by dental setting. Therefore, the goal of this study was to compare the prescribing of antibiotic prophylaxis in Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-Veterans Affairs settings. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of veteran and non-veteran dental patients with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints between 2015-2017. Multivariable log binomial regression analysis was conducted to compare concordant prescribing by setting with a sub-analysis for errors of dosing based on antibiotic duration (i.e., days prescribed). RESULTS: A total of 61,124 dental visits that received a prophylactic antibiotic were included. Most were male (61.0%), and 55 years of age or older (76.2%). Nearly a third (32.7%) received guideline concordant prophylaxis. VA dental settings had a lower prevalence of guideline concordant prescribing compared to non-VA settings in unadjusted results (unadjusted prevalence ratio [uPR] = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90-0.95). After adjustment, prevalence of guideline concordant prescribing was higher in those with prosthetic joints in the VA setting (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.59-1.88), with no difference identified in those without a prosthetic joint (aPR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.96-1.01). Concordance of dosing was higher in VA compared to non-VA settings (aPR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.07-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: VA has a higher prevalence of guideline concordant prescribing among those with prosthetic joints and when assessing dosing errors. Though the presence of an integrated electronic health record (EHR) may be contributing to these differences, other system or prescriber-related factors may be responsible. Future studies should focus on to what extent the integrated EHR may be responsible for increased guideline concordant prescribing in the VA setting.