Ana Jiménez-Ballvé1, María Jesús Pérez-Castejón2, Roberto C Delgado-Bolton3,4, Cristina Sánchez-Enrique5, Isidre Vilacosta5, David Vivas5, Carmen Olmos5, Manuel E Fuentes Ferrer6, José L Carreras-Delgado2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Clínico San Carlos University Hospital, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISSC), Complutense University of Madrid, C/Prof. Martín Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. anajimenezb@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Clínico San Carlos University Hospital, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISSC), Complutense University of Madrid, C/Prof. Martín Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Clínico San Carlos University Hospital, San Carlos Health Research Institute (IdISSC), Complutense University of Madrid, C/Prof. Martín Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. rbiolton@gmail.com. 4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging (Radiology) and Nuclear Medicine, San Pedro Hospital and Centre for Biomedical Research of La Rioja (CIBIR), University of La Rioja, C/Piqueras 98, Logroño, 26006, La Rioja, Spain. rbiolton@gmail.com. 5. Department of Cardiology, Clínico San Carlos University Hospital, C/Prof. Martín Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. 6. Research Unit, Clínico San Carlos University Hospital, C/Prof. Martín Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The diagnosis of prosthetic valve (PV) infective endocarditis (IE) and infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) remains challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of 18F-FDG PET/CT in these patients and analyse the interpretation criteria. METHODS: We included 41 patients suspected of having IE by the Duke criteria who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT. The criteria applied for classifying the findings as positive/negative for IE were: (a) visual analysis of only PET images with attenuation-correction (AC PET images); (b) visual analysis of both AC PET images and PET images without AC (NAC PET images); (c) qualitative analysis of NAC PET images; and (d) semiquantitative analysis of AC PET images. 18F-FDG PET/CT was considered positive for IE independently of the intensity and distribution of FDG uptake. The gold standard was the Duke pathological criteria (if tissue was available) or the decision of an endocarditis expert team after a minimum 4 months follow-up. RESULTS: We studied 62 areas with suspicion of IE, 28 areas (45 %) showing definite IE and 34 (55 %) showing possible IE. Visual analysis of only AC PET images showed poor diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 20 %, specificity 57 %). Visual analysis of both AC PET and NAC PET images showed excellent sensitivity (100 %) and intermediate specificity (73 %), focal uptake being more frequently associated with IE. The accuracy of qualitative analysis of NAC PET images depended on the threshold: the maximum sensitivity, specificity and accuracy achieved were 88 %, 80 %, 84 %, respectively. In the semiquantitative analysis of AC PET images, SUVmax was higher in areas of confirmed IE than in those without IE (∆SUVmax 2.2, p < 0.001). When FDG uptake was twice that in the liver, IE was always confirmed, and SUVmax 5.5 was the optimal threshold for IE diagnosis using ROC curve analysis (area under the curve 0.71). CONCLUSION: The value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of suspected IE of PVs and CIEDs is highly dependent on patient preparation and the method used for image interpretation. Based on our results, the best method is to consider a study positive for IE when FDG uptake is present in both AC PET and NAC PET images.
PURPOSE: The diagnosis of prosthetic valve (PV) infective endocarditis (IE) and infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) remains challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of 18F-FDG PET/CT in these patients and analyse the interpretation criteria. METHODS: We included 41 patients suspected of having IE by the Duke criteria who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT. The criteria applied for classifying the findings as positive/negative for IE were: (a) visual analysis of only PET images with attenuation-correction (AC PET images); (b) visual analysis of both AC PET images and PET images without AC (NAC PET images); (c) qualitative analysis of NAC PET images; and (d) semiquantitative analysis of AC PET images. 18F-FDG PET/CT was considered positive for IE independently of the intensity and distribution of FDG uptake. The gold standard was the Duke pathological criteria (if tissue was available) or the decision of an endocarditis expert team after a minimum 4 months follow-up. RESULTS: We studied 62 areas with suspicion of IE, 28 areas (45 %) showing definite IE and 34 (55 %) showing possible IE. Visual analysis of only AC PET images showed poor diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 20 %, specificity 57 %). Visual analysis of both AC PET and NAC PET images showed excellent sensitivity (100 %) and intermediate specificity (73 %), focal uptake being more frequently associated with IE. The accuracy of qualitative analysis of NAC PET images depended on the threshold: the maximum sensitivity, specificity and accuracy achieved were 88 %, 80 %, 84 %, respectively. In the semiquantitative analysis of AC PET images, SUVmax was higher in areas of confirmed IE than in those without IE (∆SUVmax 2.2, p < 0.001). When FDG uptake was twice that in the liver, IE was always confirmed, and SUVmax 5.5 was the optimal threshold for IE diagnosis using ROC curve analysis (area under the curve 0.71). CONCLUSION: The value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of suspected IE of PVs and CIEDs is highly dependent on patient preparation and the method used for image interpretation. Based on our results, the best method is to consider a study positive for IE when FDG uptake is present in both AC PET and NAC PET images.
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: EhabI M Kamel; Cyrill Burger; Alfred Buck; GustavI K von Schulthess; GerhardI W Goerres Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-08-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jean-François Sarrazin; François Philippon; Michel Tessier; Jean Guimond; Franck Molin; Jean Champagne; Isabelle Nault; Louis Blier; Maxime Nadeau; Lyne Charbonneau; Mikaël Trottier; Gilles O'Hara Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Francois Jamar; John Buscombe; Arturo Chiti; Paul E Christian; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Ora Israel; Josep Martin-Comin; Alberto Signore Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J P Pilkington Woll; A M García Vicente; M P Talavera Rubio; A M Palomar Muñoz; G Jiménez Londoño; A León Martín; C Calle Primo; A M Soriano Castejón Journal: Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Larry M Baddour; Andrew E Epstein; Christopher C Erickson; Bradley P Knight; Matthew E Levison; Peter B Lockhart; Frederick A Masoudi; Eric J Okum; Walter R Wilson; Lee B Beerman; Ann F Bolger; N A Mark Estes; Michael Gewitz; Jane W Newburger; Eleanor B Schron; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J Ambrosioni; M Hernandez-Meneses; A Téllez; J Pericàs; C Falces; J M Tolosana; B Vidal; M Almela; E Quintana; J Llopis; A Moreno; José M Miro Journal: Curr Infect Dis Rep Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 3.725
Authors: Paola Anna Erba; Patrizio Lancellotti; Isidre Vilacosta; Oliver Gaemperli; Francois Rouzet; Marcus Hacker; Alberto Signore; Riemer H J A Slart; Gilbert Habib Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 9.236