. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Med. 2021 Oct 27;135(3):369–379.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.10.007

Table 3.

Prospective Controlled Studies of Infective Endocarditis

Author	Year	N	Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria	Regimen Oral vs IV	Success Oral vs IV	Reported Complications Oral vs IV, n (%)

Stamboulian⁴⁴	’91	30	Included: native valve IE due to penicillin-susceptible streptococci Exclusion: cardiovascular risk factors, prosthetic valves	2 weeks ceftriaxone then 2 weeks amoxicillin vs. 4 weeks ceftriaxone	100% (15/15) vs 100% (15/15)	Relapse AE’s	1 (7%) vs. 0 (0%) 1 (7%) vs. 1 (7%)

Heldman⁴⁵	’96	44	Included: adult injection drug users with right-sided staphylococcal IE (95% MSSA) Excluded: left sided IE, prosthetic device, pregnant, intubated	Ciprofloxacin + rifampin vs. standard IV	95% (18/19) vs. 88% (22/25)	AE’s	1 (3%) vs. 24 (62%)

Iversen⁴¹/Bungaard⁴³^*	’19	400	Included: IE of any valve, including prosthetic valves and pacemakers due to streptoccci, E. faecalis, S. aureus or CoNS Excluded: unstable patients	Standard oral vs. standard IV	73% (146/199) vs. 62% (125/201)	AE’s	10 (5%) vs. 12 (6%)

Tissot-Dupont^42†	’19	341	Included: IE of any valve, including prosthetic value due to S. aureus (including MRSA)	IV TMP-SMX + clindamycin for 7 days transitioned to oral vs. standard IV	81% (138/171) vs. 70% (119/170)	Relapse AEs	7 (4%) vs. 10 (6%) 27 (16%) vs. 16 (9%)

Totals (N=3 RCTs) + 1 quasi-experimental		474	Oral 77% (179/233) vs IV 67% (162/241)
Totals (N=3 RCTs) + 1 quasi-experimental		815	Oral 78% (317/404) vs IV 68% (281/411)

Iversen et al. reported 6-month follow up, and Bungaard et al. reported median 3 year follow up of the same study patients. Outcomes shown are from the longer term follow up.

^†

This was a quasi-experimental, pre-post study. CoNS: coagulase-negative staphylococci; IE: infective endocarditis; MRSA: methicillin-resistant S. aureus; MSSA: methicillin-sensitive S. aureus. AE = adverse events.