Philipp Kanapinn1, Wolfgang Burchert2, Hermann Körperich2, Jan Körfer2. 1. Institute for Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Heart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia, University Hospital of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. philipp.kanapinn@rub.de. 2. Institute for Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Heart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia, University Hospital of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), diagnosis of a driveline infection in ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients remains challenging. Our aim was to evaluate the potential of a baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT (prior to an infection) for the diagnosis of an LVAD-related infection. METHODS: We retrospectively selected all LVAD recipients who had undergone two consecutive whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations between January 2010 and December 2016. PET/CT was analyzed qualitatively (uptake pattern) and semi-quantitatively (SUVmax and ∆SUVmax). SUVmax was measured and compared in five distinctive volumes of interest along the LVAD driveline. An SUVmax threshold was calculated. Final diagnosis was made by clinical examination, microbiological parameters, and molecular imaging. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled (mean age 54 ± 12 years; 26 male). Mean difference in SUVmax for all five positions between the first and the second PET/CT along the driveline was significantly higher in patients with an LVAD-related infection (mean ∆SUVmax = 4.38 ± 1.44) compared to those without a driveline infection (mean ∆SUVmax = 0.03 ± 0.43), P < 0.05. Applying ROC analysis, an SUVmax threshold of 3.88 resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 100%, respectively. There were three distinctive uptake patterns in patients with a driveline infection. CONCLUSION: PET/CT diagnosis in the context of an LVAD-related infection can be improved by comparison to a baseline examination using a distinctive SUVmax threshold.
BACKGROUND: Despite the use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), diagnosis of a driveline infection in ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients remains challenging. Our aim was to evaluate the potential of a baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT (prior to an infection) for the diagnosis of an LVAD-related infection. METHODS: We retrospectively selected all LVAD recipients who had undergone two consecutive whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations between January 2010 and December 2016. PET/CT was analyzed qualitatively (uptake pattern) and semi-quantitatively (SUVmax and ∆SUVmax). SUVmax was measured and compared in five distinctive volumes of interest along the LVAD driveline. An SUVmax threshold was calculated. Final diagnosis was made by clinical examination, microbiological parameters, and molecular imaging. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled (mean age 54 ± 12 years; 26 male). Mean difference in SUVmax for all five positions between the first and the second PET/CT along the driveline was significantly higher in patients with an LVAD-related infection (mean ∆SUVmax = 4.38 ± 1.44) compared to those without a driveline infection (mean ∆SUVmax = 0.03 ± 0.43), P < 0.05. Applying ROC analysis, an SUVmax threshold of 3.88 resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 100%, respectively. There were three distinctive uptake patterns in patients with a driveline infection. CONCLUSION: PET/CT diagnosis in the context of an LVAD-related infection can be improved by comparison to a baseline examination using a distinctive SUVmax threshold.
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: Margaret M Hannan; Shahid Husain; Frauke Mattner; Lara Danziger-Isakov; Richard J Drew; G Ralph Corey; Stephan Schueler; William L Holman; Leo P Lawler; Steve M Gordon; Niall G Mahon; John M Herre; Kate Gould; Jose G Montoya; Robert F Padera; Robert L Kormos; John V Conte; Martha L Mooney Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Liza Grosman-Rimon; Ira Jacobs; Laura C Tumiati; Michael A McDonald; Stacey Pollock Bar-Ziv; Avi Fuks; Hiroyuki Kawajiri; Julieta Lazarte; Arash Ghashghai; Daniel J Shogilev; David Z Cherney; Vivek Rao Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Rachel J Gordon; Alan D Weinberg; Francis D Pagani; Mark S Slaughter; Pat S Pappas; Yoshifumi Naka; Daniel J Goldstein; Walter P Dembitsky; Julie C Giacalone; Jennifer Ferrante; Deborah D Ascheim; Alan J Moskowitz; Eric A Rose; Annetine C Gelijns; Franklin D Lowy Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ranjit John; Keith D Aaronson; Walter E Pae; Michael A Acker; David R Hathaway; Kevin B Najarian; Mark S Slaughter Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 10.247
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: Zaid I Almarzooq; Anubodh S Varshney; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Manan Pareek; Garrick C Stewart; Jerry D Estep; Mandeep R Mehra Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-09-18
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