| Literature DB >> 33437820 |
Sanjeet Singh Avtaar Singh1,2, Marco Fabio Costantino3, Gianpaolo D'Addeo3, Damiano Cardinale3, Rosario Fiorilli3, Francesco Nappi4.
Abstract
The profile of infective endocarditis (IE) has changed over the past few decades. The modified Duke's criteria is currently employed for diagnosis of IE. Emphasis on imaging modalities however, have been increasing due to the variety of presenting symptoms leading to diagnostic conundrums. This wide range of diagnostic tools must be adapted to permit localization of the infectious field which may involve multiple valves on either side of the heart. The availability of such diagnostic tools is also variable in different centres. The use of echocardiography has long been the default position, however the lack of specificity and sensitivity especially in prosthetic valve endocarditis has been highlighted throughout the literature. We therefore aimed to look at the different imaging modalities available and the strengths and weaknesses of each of these modalities to enhance the diagnostic yield and allow timely intervention for this condition. We highlight the role of the different forms of echocardiography, multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), Nuclear Medicine, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and identify the special indications such as right sided infective endocarditis (RSIE) and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) endocarditis. Input from a specialist heart team is essential to ensure timely diagnosis and care are afforded. The role of alternative imaging techniques such as nuclear medicine in determining timing of cardiac surgery should be evaluated further by randomised trials. 2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: Infective endocarditis (IE); magnetic nuclear resonance (MRI); multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT); nuclear medicine; transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE); transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)
Year: 2020 PMID: 33437820 PMCID: PMC7791262 DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-4555
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Sensitivities and specificities of echocardiography for native and prosthetic valves
| Vegetations on native valve | Vegetation on prosthetic valve | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTE | TEE | TTE | TEE | ||
| Sensitivity% | 25–87 | 87–100 | 22–65 | 89–99 | |
| Specificity% | 79–96 | 91–100 | 48–98 | 87–100 | |
TTE, transthoracic echocardiography; TEE, transoesophageal echocardiography.
Figure 1Large vegetation on bioprosthetic mitral valve (2D transoesophageal echocardiography).
Figure 2Large vegetation on bioprosthetic mitral valve (3D transoesophageal echocardiography).
Figure 3Large abscess on mitroaortic curtain (2D transoesophageal echocardiography).
Sensitivity and specificity of echocardiography in detecting abscesses
| Abscesses | Periprosthetic abscesses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTE | TEE | TTE | TEE | ||
| Sensitivity% | 28–36 | 80–100 | – | 48–87 | |
| Specificity% | 99 | 95 | – | 95–99 | |
TTE, transthoracic echocardiography; TEE, transoesophageal echocardiography.
Differentiating vegetations from other masses
| Vegetation | Other Masses |
|---|---|
| Attached to valve, upstream side | Attached to valve downstream side |
| Mobile, oscillating | Nonmobile |
| Irregular shape | Smooth surface o fibrillar |
| Low reflectance | High echogenicity |
| Associated valvular regurgitation o perivalvular lesions | Absence of valvular involvement |
| High risk of embolization (if size >1 cm) |
Figure 4Huge periaortic pseudoaneurysm.
Sensitivity and Specificity of MDCT for detecting IE changes
| Vegetations | Abscesses | Pseudoaneurysm | Leaflet/cusp perforations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity MDCT | 96% | 97% | 97% | <50% |
| Specificity MDCT | 99% | 75% | 75% | 89% |
MDCT, multi-detector computed tomography; IE, infective endocarditis.
Differences between Echocardiography and MDCT in detecting IE changes
| Echocardiography | MDCT |
|---|---|
| High spatial resolution | High spatial resolution |
| High sensitivity and specificity | Able to detect perivalvular lesion (abscess-pseudoaneurysm) |
| Permits evaluation of Jet, shunt and transvalvular gradient | Permits to evaluate annular and leaflet bulky calcium |
| Bedside | Able to evaluate aortic root and coronary arteries |
| Able to detect perforation of leaflet or cusps | Allows tricuspidalic anulus and leaflet imaging |
| Permits to plan cardiac surgery | Evaluate extracardiac structures |
| Allows percutaneous reparation of leaks ( | |
| Without RX ray or contrast agent |
MDCT, multi-detector computed tomography; IE, infective endocarditis.
Figure 5Percutaneous closure of mitral prosthetic leak (3D transoesophageal echocardiography).
The specific advantages and pitfalls of diagnostic imaging methods
| Echo TTE/ETT | MDCT | CMR | Nuclear medicine | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bedside | **** | No | No | No |
| Evaluation Jets, shunts | **** | No | **** | No |
| Evaluation of cardiac performance | **** | ** | **** | No |
| Early diagnosis | * | * | * | *** |
| Evaluation of coronary artery | No | *** | * | *** |
| Extracardiac lesions | No | No | *** | **** |
| Shadowing | *** | * | **** | No |
| RSIE | **** | ** | * | * |
| Imaging of perivalvular lesions | *** | **** | * | * |
TTE, transthoracic echocardiography; TEE, transoesophageal echocardiography; MDCT, multi-detector computed tomography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; RSIE, right sided infective endocarditis.