PURPOSE: A continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a new and highly promising therapy in supporting end-stage heart failure patients, either bridging them to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy. Infection is one of the major complications associated with LVAD implants. 18F-FDG PET/CT has already been shown to be useful in the detection of LVAD infection. The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different PET analysis techniques (visual grading versus SUVmax and metabolic volume). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 48 patients with implanted LVAD who underwent an 18F-FDG PET/CT that were either suspected to have a driveline or device infection or inflammation of unknown origin. PET/CT was analyzed qualitatively (visual grading) and quantitatively (SUVmax and metabolic volume) and matched to the final clinical diagnosis concerning driveline infection. The final diagnosis (standard of reference) was made at the end of clinically recorded follow-up or transplantation and included microbiological cultures of the driveline exit site and/or surgical samples, and clinical signs of infection despite negative cultures as well as recurrence of symptoms. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value were 87.5%, 79%, 81% and 86% for visual score, 87.5%, 87.5%, 87.5% and 87.5% for SUVmax and 96%, 87.5%, 88.5%, 95.5% for metabolic volume, respectively. ROC analysis revealed an AUC of .929 for SUVmax and .969 for metabolic volume. Both SUVmax and metabolic volume had a high detection rate of patients with driveline infection (21/24 = 91.5% true positive vs. 23/26 = 88.5% true positive, respectively). However, metabolic volume detected more patients without any infection correctly (1/22 = 4.5% false negative vs. 3/24 = 12.5% false negative). CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG PET/CT is a valuable tool for the diagnosis of LVAD driveline infection with high diagnostic accuracy. Particularly the use of the metabolic volume yields very high accuracy and performs slightly better than SUVmax.
PURPOSE: A continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a new and highly promising therapy in supporting end-stage heart failurepatients, either bridging them to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy. Infection is one of the major complications associated with LVAD implants. 18F-FDG PET/CT has already been shown to be useful in the detection of LVAD infection. The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different PET analysis techniques (visual grading versus SUVmax and metabolic volume). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 48 patients with implanted LVAD who underwent an 18F-FDG PET/CT that were either suspected to have a driveline or device infection or inflammation of unknown origin. PET/CT was analyzed qualitatively (visual grading) and quantitatively (SUVmax and metabolic volume) and matched to the final clinical diagnosis concerning driveline infection. The final diagnosis (standard of reference) was made at the end of clinically recorded follow-up or transplantation and included microbiological cultures of the driveline exit site and/or surgical samples, and clinical signs of infection despite negative cultures as well as recurrence of symptoms. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value were 87.5%, 79%, 81% and 86% for visual score, 87.5%, 87.5%, 87.5% and 87.5% for SUVmax and 96%, 87.5%, 88.5%, 95.5% for metabolic volume, respectively. ROC analysis revealed an AUC of .929 for SUVmax and .969 for metabolic volume. Both SUVmax and metabolic volume had a high detection rate of patients with driveline infection (21/24 = 91.5% true positive vs. 23/26 = 88.5% true positive, respectively). However, metabolic volume detected more patients without any infection correctly (1/22 = 4.5% false negative vs. 3/24 = 12.5% false negative). CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG PET/CT is a valuable tool for the diagnosis of LVAD driveline infection with high diagnostic accuracy. Particularly the use of the metabolic volume yields very high accuracy and performs slightly better than SUVmax.
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: Georg M Wieselthaler; Gerry O Driscoll; Paul Jansz; Asghar Khaghani; Martin Strueber Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2010-06-19 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: María N Pizzi; Albert Roque; Nuria Fernández-Hidalgo; Hug Cuéllar-Calabria; Ignacio Ferreira-González; María T Gonzàlez-Alujas; Gerard Oristrell; Laura Gracia-Sánchez; Juan J González; José Rodríguez-Palomares; Manuel Galiñanes; Olga Maisterra-Santos; David Garcia-Dorado; Joan Castell-Conesa; Benito Almirante; Santiago Aguadé-Bruix; Pilar Tornos Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Angelo M Dell'Aquila; Stefan R B Schneider; Jörg Stypmann; Björn Ellger; Bassam Redwan; Dominik Schlarb; Sven Martens; Jürgen R Sindermann Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 3.094
Authors: Angelo Maria Dell'Aquila; Stefano Mastrobuoni; Sebastian Alles; Christian Wenning; Welp Henryk; Stefan Rudolf Bertram Schneider; Heinz Deschka; Jürgen R Sindermann; Mirela Scherer Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: A S Cottereau; S Becker; F Broussais; O Casasnovas; S Kanoun; M Roques; N Charrier; S Bertrand; R Delarue; C Bonnet; R Hustinx; P Gaulard; L de Leval; P Vera; E Itti; N Mounier; C Haioun; H Tilly; M Meignan Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Saul N Friedman; Maryam Mahmood; Jennifer R Geske; Muhammad Rizwan Sohail; Geoffrey B Johnson; John M Stulak; Ayse Tuba Kendi Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: Marty C Tam; Vaiibhav N Patel; Richard L Weinberg; Edward A Hulten; Keith D Aaronson; Francis D Pagani; James R Corbett; Venkatesh L Murthy Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-07-17
Authors: Jan M Sommerlath Sohns; Hannah Kröhn; Alexandra Schöde; Thorsten Derlin; Axel Haverich; Jan D Schmitto; Frank M Bengel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: D Ten Hove; G Treglia; R H J A Slart; K Damman; M Wouthuyzen-Bakker; D F Postma; O Gheysens; R J H Borra; G Mecozzi; P P van Geel; B Sinha; A W J M Glaudemans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-06-27 Impact factor: 9.236