Joseph A Sivak1, Amit N Vora2, Ann Marie Navar1, Phillip J Schulte3, Anna Lisa Crowley1, Joseph Kisslo1, G Ralph Corey4, Lawrence Liao1, Andrew Wang1, Eric J Velazquez2, Zainab Samad5. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: zainab.samad@dm.duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with suspected native valve infective endocarditis, current guidelines recommend initial transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) followed by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) if clinical suspicion remains. The guidelines do not account for the quality of initial TTE or other findings that may alter the study's diagnostic characteristics. This may lead to unnecessary TEE when initial TTE was sufficient to rule out vegetation. METHODS: The objective of this study was to determine if the use of a strict definition of negative results on TTE would improve the performance characteristics of TTE sufficiently to exclude vegetation. A retrospective analysis of patients at a single institution with suspected native valve endocarditis who underwent TTE followed by TEE within 7 days between January 1, 2007, and February 28, 2014, was performed. Negative results on TTE for vegetation were defined by either the standard approach (no evidence of vegetation seen on TTE) or by applying a set of strict negative criteria incorporating other findings on TTE. Using TEE as the gold standard for the presence of vegetation, the diagnostic performance of the two transthoracic approaches was compared. RESULTS: In total, 790 pairs of TTE and TEE were identified. With the standard approach, 661 of the transthoracic studies had negative findings (no vegetation seen), compared with 104 studies with negative findings using the strict negative approach (meeting all strict negative criteria). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of TTE for detecting vegetation were substantially improved using the strict negative approach (sensitivity, 98% [95% CI, 95%-99%] vs 43% [95% CI, 36%-51%]; negative predictive value, 97% [95% CI, 92%-99%] vs 87% [95% CI, 84%-89%]). CONCLUSIONS: The ability of TTE to exclude vegetation in patients is excellent when strict criteria for negative results are applied. In patients at low to intermediate risk with strict negative results on TTE, follow-up TEE may be unnecessary.
BACKGROUND: In patients with suspected native valve infective endocarditis, current guidelines recommend initial transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) followed by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) if clinical suspicion remains. The guidelines do not account for the quality of initial TTE or other findings that may alter the study's diagnostic characteristics. This may lead to unnecessary TEE when initial TTE was sufficient to rule out vegetation. METHODS: The objective of this study was to determine if the use of a strict definition of negative results on TTE would improve the performance characteristics of TTE sufficiently to exclude vegetation. A retrospective analysis of patients at a single institution with suspected native valve endocarditis who underwent TTE followed by TEE within 7 days between January 1, 2007, and February 28, 2014, was performed. Negative results on TTE for vegetation were defined by either the standard approach (no evidence of vegetation seen on TTE) or by applying a set of strict negative criteria incorporating other findings on TTE. Using TEE as the gold standard for the presence of vegetation, the diagnostic performance of the two transthoracic approaches was compared. RESULTS: In total, 790 pairs of TTE and TEE were identified. With the standard approach, 661 of the transthoracic studies had negative findings (no vegetation seen), compared with 104 studies with negative findings using the strict negative approach (meeting all strict negative criteria). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of TTE for detecting vegetation were substantially improved using the strict negative approach (sensitivity, 98% [95% CI, 95%-99%] vs 43% [95% CI, 36%-51%]; negative predictive value, 97% [95% CI, 92%-99%] vs 87% [95% CI, 84%-89%]). CONCLUSIONS: The ability of TTE to exclude vegetation in patients is excellent when strict criteria for negative results are applied. In patients at low to intermediate risk with strict negative results on TTE, follow-up TEE may be unnecessary.
Authors: J S Li; D J Sexton; N Mick; R Nettles; V G Fowler; T Ryan; T Bashore; G R Corey Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2000-04-03 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Michael H Picard; David Adams; S Michelle Bierig; John M Dent; Pamela S Douglas; Linda D Gillam; Andrew M Keller; David J Malenka; Frederick A Masoudi; Marti McCulloch; Patricia A Pellikka; Priscilla J Peters; Raymond F Stainback; G Monet Strachan; William A Zoghbi Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Bharath Raj Palraj; Larry M Baddour; Erik P Hess; James M Steckelberg; Walter R Wilson; Brian D Lahr; M Rizwan Sohail Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ander Regueiro; Carlos Falces; Carlos Cervera; Ana Del Rio; Juan C Paré; Carlos A Mestres; Ximena Castañeda; Juan M Pericàs; Manel Azqueta; Francesc Marco; Salvador Ninot; Manel Almela; Asunción Moreno; José M Miró Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: R Erbel; S Rohmann; M Drexler; S Mohr-Kahaly; C D Gerharz; S Iversen; H Oelert; J Meyer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 1988-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: S Sherman-Weber; P Axelrod; B Suh; S Rubin; D Beltramo; J Manacchio; S Furukawa; T Weber; H Eisen; R Samuel Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Vinay Kini; Sachin Logani; Bonnie Ky; Julio A Chirinos; Victor A Ferrari; Martin G St John Sutton; Susan E Wiegers; James N Kirkpatrick Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Anna Lisa Crowley; Gail E Peterson; Daniel K Benjamin; Susan H Rimmer; Cindy Todd; Christopher H Cabell; L Barth Reller; Thomas Ryan; G Ralph Corey; Vance G Fowler Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Muhammad R Sohail; Daniel Z Uslan; Akbar H Khan; Paul A Friedman; David L Hayes; Walter R Wilson; James M Steckelberg; Sarah M Jenkins; Larry M Baddour Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Serafín López Palmero; Miguel Angel López Zúñiga; Virginia Rodríguez Martínez; Raul Reyes Parrilla; Ana Maria Alguacil Muñoz; Waldo Sánchez-Yebra Romera; Patricia Martín Rico; Inmaculada Poquet Catalá; Carlos Jiménez Guardiola; Alfonso Del Pozo Pérez; Ruben Lobato Cano; Ana Maria Lazo Torres; Gines López Martínez; Luis Felipe Díez García; Tesifon Parrón Carreño Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Joop J P Kouijzer; Daniëlle J Noordermeer; Wouter J van Leeuwen; Nelianne J Verkaik; Kirby R Lattwein Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2022-10-03
Authors: Edward F Gibbons; Gary Huang; Gabriel Aldea; Kevin Koomalsingh; Jared W Klein; Shireesha Dhanireddy; Robert Harrington Journal: Crit Pathw Cardiol Date: 2020-12