Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging in Device Infective Endocarditis
2015; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 132; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circulationaha.115.018521
ISSN1524-4539
AutoresPatrizio Lancellotti, Gilbert Habib, Cécile Oury, Alain Nchimi,
Tópico(s)Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 132, No. 12Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging in Device Infective Endocarditis Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBPositron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging in Device Infective EndocarditisReady for Prime Time Patrizio Lancellotti, MD, PhD, Gilbert Habib, MD, PhD, Cécile Oury, PhD and Alain Nchimi, MD, PhD Patrizio LancellottiPatrizio Lancellotti From GIGA-Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Liège, Department of Cardiology and Radiology, Belgium (P.L., C.O., A.N.); Gruppo Villa Maria Care and Research, E.S. Health Science Foundation, Lugo (RA), Italy (P.L.); and Service de Cardiologie, C.H.U. De La Timone, Bd Jean Moulin, Marseille, France (G.H.). , Gilbert HabibGilbert Habib From GIGA-Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Liège, Department of Cardiology and Radiology, Belgium (P.L., C.O., A.N.); Gruppo Villa Maria Care and Research, E.S. Health Science Foundation, Lugo (RA), Italy (P.L.); and Service de Cardiologie, C.H.U. De La Timone, Bd Jean Moulin, Marseille, France (G.H.). , Cécile OuryCécile Oury From GIGA-Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Liège, Department of Cardiology and Radiology, Belgium (P.L., C.O., A.N.); Gruppo Villa Maria Care and Research, E.S. Health Science Foundation, Lugo (RA), Italy (P.L.); and Service de Cardiologie, C.H.U. De La Timone, Bd Jean Moulin, Marseille, France (G.H.). and Alain NchimiAlain Nchimi From GIGA-Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Liège, Department of Cardiology and Radiology, Belgium (P.L., C.O., A.N.); Gruppo Villa Maria Care and Research, E.S. Health Science Foundation, Lugo (RA), Italy (P.L.); and Service de Cardiologie, C.H.U. De La Timone, Bd Jean Moulin, Marseille, France (G.H.). Originally published14 Aug 2015https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018521Circulation. 2015;132:1076–1080Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: September 22, 2015: Previous Version 1 Over the past decade there has been a remarkable increase in prosthetic heart valve replacement and cardiac implantable electronic device use. Although capable of improving the quality and quantity of life of patients who have severe valvular heart disease or rhythm disorders, they are both subject to potentially life-threatening infection involving the endocardium, referred to as device infective endocarditis (DIE).1,2Article see p 1113The rate of prosthetic valve (PV) endocarditis ranges from 6% to 15%, being higher in revision surgery.1 The infection usually involves the junction between the sewing ring and the annulus, leading to perivalvular abscess, dehiscence, pseudoaneurysms, and fistulae, or the leaflets of the prosthesis, leading to vegetations, cusp rupture, and perforation. Cardiac device–related infective endocarditis (CDRIE), to be distinguished from local device infection (pocket/generator), is defined as an infection involving the electrode leads, cardiac valve leaflets, or endocardial surface. An incidence of 1.4 per 1000 device-years of definite CDRIE has been reported.3 DIE may occur at anytime, being related to surgery only in early cases.Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of DIE can carry significant risk of death, considerable morbidity, unnecessary antimicrobial therapy, and excessive costs. The diagnostic approach of DIE does not differ from other forms of infective endocarditis, although it is more challenging. The diagnosis is definite in cases of typical pathological features obtained after device removal. In daily practice, the diagnosis of DIE relies on the modified Duke criteria that use typical clinical signs and symptoms and positive blood cultures to reach a definitive diagnosis when the device can be shown to be affected on echocardiography. This clinical approach yields a better sensitivity (70%–80%) when these criteria are examined at the end of patient follow-up rather than in the early stage of the disease.4 The addition of local signs of infection and pulmonary embolism as major clinical criteria also improves their sensitivity in the case of suspected CDRIE.5 The modified Duke criteria has a lower diagnostic accuracy in DIE, for which echocardiography gives uncertain results in up to 15% to 30% of cases.1,4 Vegetation, abscess or pseudoaneurysm, and new PV dehiscence are major diagnostic Duke criteria for DIE. Although transthoracic echocardiography has relatively high specificity for detecting vegetations and abscesses (90%), its sensitivity lies between 40% and 80%. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has better sensitivity for the diagnosis of both conditions (90%). Small PV abscesses are more difficult to identify, however, particularly in the early postoperative period. TEE also has sensitivity and specificity superior to transthoracic echocardiography for the diagnosis of CDRIE.Overall, the modified Duke criteria rely heavily on echocardiography, which is relatively insensitive in the early stage of the disease (morphological criteria) or may be difficult to interpret in cases of PV (artefacts). In patients with a high index of suspicion, a normal/inconclusive echocardiographic examination does not therefore rule out DIE, generating a significant rate of inconclusive diagnoses. For improving the accuracy of the Duke criteria, other imaging modalities such as multidetector computed tomography (CT), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) have recently gained importance.6–19With the use of retrospective ECG-gated acquisitions and intravenous contrast to enhance vascular structures, current-generation CT scanners provide enough spatial detail to visualize the valvular structures at several different phases of the cardiac cycle without motion artifact. The so-called cardiac CT angiography (CTA) is possibly superior to TEE for the evaluation of perivalvular complications such as abscesses and pseudoaneurysms or fistulae. However, its negative predictive value to detect vegetations depends on their size (lesions ≥ 5 mm; 100% negative predictive value if >1 cm versus 55% if <1 cm). Overall, its diagnostic accuracy is similar to TEE for vegetation and new PV dehiscence, but remains lower for leaflet perforation.6,7 On the other hand, the ability of multidetector CT to assess the entire chest (identification of septic pulmonary infarcts and abscesses) and adjacent cardiothoracic structures, such as the aorta, vena cava, and coronary arteries, can also be invaluable to diagnosing clinical problems and management planning.8The shortcomings of the diagnosis of DIE based on morphological changes have triggered an increasing use of SPECT and PET for the evaluation of the increased metabolic activity caused by the infection before any structural change. The integration of the anatomic detail provided by unenhanced CT with metabolic imaging (SPECT/CT and PET/CT) has improved the accuracy and utility of this approach. Several reports have highlighted the potential added value of SPECT/CT imaging of radiolabeled leukocytes and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of DIE in patients with a negative or inconclusive routine workup with transthoracic echocardiography and TEE9–19 (Table). Radiolabeled leukocyte SPECT/CT imaging seems to be more specific for the detection of infective endocarditis and infectious foci than 18F-FDG PET/CT. However, 18F-FDG PET/CT is likely the preferred imaging technique, because SPECT/CT is less sensitive, more time consuming, and requires leukocyte labeling.1,1618F-FDG is a glucose analogue used to identify areas of infection and regions of vascular inflammation by highlighting cells with higher metabolic activity such as activated leukocytes, monocyte-macrophages, and CD4+ T lymphocytes. In a recent prospective study, Saby et al15 showed that adding abnormal FDG uptake around a PV to the modified Duke criteria at admission increased the sensitivity for the diagnosis of PV endocarditis from 70% to 97%. This result was attributable to a significant reduction in the number of possible PV endocarditis cases from 56% to 32%. Similar data have been reported in CDRIE with the possibility of assessing the extension of the infectious process and differentiating between DIE and other postimplantation phenomena (eg, pocket hematoma, inflammation).9–14 Interestingly, several reports showed that FDG-PET/CT could detect clinically unsuspected sites of extracardiac infection in up to 10% to 28% of cases.18,19Table. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Suspected Device Infective EndocarditisAuthors (Years and Reference)PopulationMethodSite of Infective EndocarditisExclusion CriteriaFinal DiagnosisDuke Criteria18F-FDG PET ResultsDuke Criteria +18F-FDG PET/CTBensimhon et al (2011)9n=21 with suspected CIED infection + 14 controls• 18F-FDG PET/CT• 15 under antibiotic treatment• Pacemaker• Implantable defibrillator• Not specified• Definite IE=10• Not specified• Positive TEE (performed in 16 cases) for vegetation in 31%Generator• Sensitivity=80%• Specificity=100%Leads• Sensitivity=60%• Specificity=100%• Not specifiedSarrazin et al (2012)10n=42 with suspected CIED infection + 12 controls• 18F-FDG PET/CT• Pacemaker• Not specified• Definite IE=35• Not specified• Positive TEE 54.5%• Sensitivity=88.6%• Specificity=85.7%• Not specifiedCautela et al (2013)11n=21 with CIED infection (13 with CDRIE)• 18F-FDG PET/CT• 11 under antibiotic treatment• Pacemaker• Implantable defibrillator• Not specified• Definite IE=7• Possible IE=6• Not specified• Positive TTE/TEE in 77%• Sensitivity=30.8%• Specificity=62.5%• Not specifiedLeccisotti et al (2014)12n=27 with suspected CIED infection +15 controls• 18F-FDG PET/CT• Standard protocol (1H)• Delayed protocol (3H)• All under antibiotic treatment• Pacemaker• Implantable defibrillator• Pregnancy• Hemodynamic instability• Inability to lie flat• Diabetes mellitus• Not specified• Not specified• Positive TEE for vegetation in 52%Standard• Sensitivity=86%• Specificity=100%Delayed• Sensitivity=91%• Specificity=100%• Not specifiedGraziosi et al (2014)13n=27 with suspected CIED infection• 18F-FDG PET/CT• Pacemaker• Implantable defibrillator• Not specified• Definite IE=5• Possible IE=10• Rejected IE=12• Negative echo in 56% but TEE performed only in 27% of cases• Sensitivity=63%• Specificity=86%• Reclassification of 48% of casesAhmed et al (2015)14n=46 with suspected CIED infection + 40 controls• 18F-FDG PET/CT• 6 wk postimplantation• Pacemaker• Implantable defibrillator• Resynchronizer• Not specified• Definite PVE=20• Possible PVE=26• Not specified• Sensitivity=97%• Specificity=98%• Not specifiedSaby et al (2013)15n=72 with suspected PVE• 18F-FDG PET/CT• Median time 9 days• 55 under antibiotic treatment• 44 biological PV• 28 mechanical PV• Pregnancy• Inability to lie flat• Need for urgent cardiac surgery• Hemodynamic instability• Cardiac surgery 1.8 g/L• Definite PVE=30• Possible PVE=22• Rejected PVE=20• Sensitivity=70%• Specificity=80%• Sensitivity=73%• Specificity=80%• Sensitivity=97%• Specificity=40%• Net reclassification index=10.3%Rouzet et al (2014)16n=39 with suspected PVE• 18F-FDG PET/CT• Radiolabeled leukocyte SPECT/CT• 28 under antibiotic treatment• 24 biological PV• 13 mechanical PV• 2 others• Stimulation device• Vascular prosthesis• Left ventricular assist device• Complicated PVE requiring immediate surgery• Definite PVE=14• Possible PVE=4• Rejected PVE=21• Not specified• Sensitivity=93%• Specificity=71%• Reclassification of 46% of casesPizzi et al (2015)17n=92 with suspected DIE• 18F-FDG PET/CT(A)• CTA in 76 cases• Median time 7 days• All under antibiotic treatment• 40 biological PV• 25 mechanical PV• 25 pacemaker• 11 implantable defibrillator/resynchronizer• 10 others• Need for urgent cardiac surgery• Hemodynamic instability• Definite PVE=52• Possible PVE=5• Rejected PVE=35• Sensitivity=51.3%• Specificity=92%• Similar for PVE and DIE• Sensitivity=87.2%• Specificity=92%• Similar for PVE and DIE• Sensitivity=89.7%• Specificity=88%• Reclassification of 90% of possible IETable continued on the following page.CDRIE indicates cardiac device–related infective endocarditis; CIED, cardiac implantable electronic device; CT, computed tomography; CTA, CT angiography; DIE, device infective endocarditis; FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose; IE, infective endocarditis; PET, positron emission tomography; PV, prosthetic valve; PVE, prosthetic valve endocarditis; SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography; and TTE, transthoracic echocardiographyIn this issue of Circulation, Pizzi et al17 evaluated the incremental value of 18F-FDG-PET imaging in association with CT(A) over the modified Duke score at admission for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis in 75 patients with PV or cardiac devices (mostly cardiac implantable electronic devices). PET/CTA acquisitions were classified as positive or negative. After ≥3-month follow-up, each patient was classified by an expert team with a diagnosis of definite, possible, or excluded DIE. The authors found that PET/CTA offered an excellent diagnostic performance (sensitivity 87%, specificity 90%) for the detection of DIE. PET/CTA in association with Duke criteria allowed reclassifying 90% (35/39) of cases initially classified as possible infective endocarditis and provided a more conclusive diagnosis (definite/reject) in 95% (71/75) of cases. Besides, PET/CTA identified a greater number of anatomic lesions than PET/CT (sensitivity 91% versus 86.4%), many of them relevant for clinical and surgical decision making (pseudoaneurysms, fistulas, thrombosis, and coronary involvement). Furthermore, PET/CTA also detected more periannular complications than echocardiography, highlighting the difficulty of echocardiographic evaluation in these patients and the benefit of CTA as a valuable alternative. Interestingly, the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CTA was pretty similar in PV and intracardiac devices. The quantitative analysis of FDG uptake was discriminant in PV endocarditis, but not in intracardiac devices, maybe because of the higher rate of intracardiac lead infection. The authors also confirmed that PET/CT was capable of detecting distant embolic sites (15%), most of which were clinically silent, and previously undiagnosed tumors (6.5%), many of them in early stages and potentially curable.This study confirms earlier promises and extends previous results showing that sizeable benefits can be obtained by including PET/CT and particularly PET/CTA in the initial diagnostic workup of patients with suspected DIE and nonconclusive echocardiography when adopting accurate patient selection and inclusion criteria by an expert endocarditis team.9–16 The benefits of PET/CT(A) are mostly related to the early identification of endocardial involvements, better evaluation of perivalvular lesions, and documentation of extracardiac complications (silent embolic events or metastatic infectious events) or associated features (ie, neoplastic lesions; Figure). Abnormal FDG (or radiolabeled leukocyte SPECT) uptake around PV and definite perivalvular lesions on cardiac CT are considered major Duke criteria in the 2015 European Society of Cardiology guidelines, whereas an embolic event detected by imaging only represents a minor criterion.1 A class IIb recommendation have been made for intracardiac devices.1 Although the study of Pizzi et al provides further evidence, the limited number of patients with suspected CDRIE does not allow drawing more definite indications yet.17 Additional potential roles of PET/CT in DIE, although not yet proven, would be to monitor responses to antimicrobial treatment in patients with established DIE and to help in individual risk stratification. Nevertheless, further work is required to define the best quantitative FDG uptake thresholds that might be used to diagnose and follow DIE evolution. With regard to the PET signal contamination, important issues remain unsolved, such as the adaptation of the optimal patient preparation and image acquisition protocols (eg, impact of hyperglycemia or leukopenia), physiological FDG uptake and nonspecific uptake by uninfected tissues (active thrombi, atherosclerotic plaques, vasculitis, foreign body reactions). Further developments should not only address these issues using, for example, more specific radionuclide probes or targets, but also those related to the detection of <5 mm vegetations (limit of resolution) and the radiation exposure. On clinical grounds, the use of intravenous contrast agents should be considered with caution, especially in case of renal insufficiency or concomitant use of nephrotoxic medication such as certain antibiotics. The best timing of imaging relative to the intervention (postoperative inflammatory response with possible false-positive responses) or the initiation of antimicrobial treatment (risk of false-negative cases) remains unknown. Last, whether PET/CT(A) would contribute to shorten the hospital stay, prevent clinical complications, and reduce the cost of hospitalization also needs to be elucidated.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure. Potential roles of PET/CT(A) in device infective endocarditis. CTA indicates computed tomography angiography; and PET, positron emission tomography.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.Correspondence to Patrizio Lancellotti, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Liège Hospital, CHU Sart Tilman, Avenue de l'Hopital, 1 B-4000 Liège Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]References1. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, Dulgheru R, ElKhoury G, Erba PA, Iung B, Miro J, Mulder BJ, Plonska-Gosciniak E, Price S, Roos-Hesselink J, Snygg-Martin U, Thuny F, Tornos P, Vilacosta I, Zamorano JL.ESC 2015 guidelines on management of infective endocarditis.Eur Heart J. 2015, doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv319.Google Scholar2. Vongpatanasin W, Hillis LD, Lange RA.Prosthetic heart valves.N Engl J Med. 1996; 335:407–416. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199608083350607.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Uslan DZ, Sohail MR, St Sauver JL, Friedman PA, Hayes DL, Stoner SM, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Baddour LM.Permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection: a population-based study.Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167:669–675. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.7.669.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Habib G, Derumeaux G, Avierinos JF, Casalta JP, Jamal F, Volot F, Garcia M, Lefevre J, Biou F, Maximovitch-Rodaminoff A, Fournier PE, Ambrosi P, Velut JG, Cribier A, Harle JR, Weiller PJ, Raoult D, Luccioni R.Value and limitations of the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 33:2023–2029.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Klug D, Lacroix D, Savoye C, Goullard L, Grandmougin D, Hennequin JL, Kacet S, Lekieffre J.Systemic infection related to endocarditis on pacemaker leads: clinical presentation and management.Circulation. 1997; 95:2098–2107.LinkGoogle Scholar6. Gahide G, Bommart S, Demaria R, Sportouch C, Dambia H, Albat B, Vernhet-Kovacsik H.Preoperative evaluation in aortic endocarditis: findings on cardiac CT.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194:574–578. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.2120.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Feuchtner GM, Stolzmann P, Dichtl W, Schertler T, Bonatti J, Scheffel H, Mueller S, Plass A, Mueller L, Bartel T, Wolf F, Alkadhi H.Multislice computed tomography in infective endocarditis: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and intraoperative findings.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53:436–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.01.077.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Entrikin DW, Gupta P, Kon ND, Carr JJ.Imaging of infective endocarditis with cardiac CT angiography.J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012; 6:399–405. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2012.10.001.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Bensimhon L, Lavergne T, Hugonnet F, Mainardi JL, Latremouille C, Maunoury C, Lepillier A, Le Heuzey JY, Faraggi M.Whole body [(18) F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for the diagnosis of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection: a preliminary prospective study.Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011; 17:836–844. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03312.x.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Sarrazin JF, Philippon F, Tessier M, Guimond J, Molin F, Champagne J, Nault I, Blier L, Nadeau M, Charbonneau L, Trottier M, O'Hara G.Usefulness of fluorine-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography for identification of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:1616–1625. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.059.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Cautela J, Alessandrini S, Cammilleri S, Giorgi R, Richet H, Casalta JP, Habib G, Raoult D, Mundler O, Deharo JC.Diagnostic yield of FDG positron-emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with CEID infection: a pilot study.Europace. 2013; 15:252–257. doi: 10.1093/europace/eus335.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Leccisotti L, Perna F, Lago M, Leo M, Stefanelli A, Calcagni ML, Pelargonio G, Narducci ML, Bencardino G, Bellocci F, Giordano A.Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection: delayed vs standard FDG PET-CT imaging.J Nucl Cardiol. 2014; 21:622–632. doi: 10.1007/s12350-014-9896-2.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Graziosi M, Nanni C, Lorenzini M, Diemberger I, Bonfiglioli R, Pasquale F, Ziacchi M, Biffi M, Martignani C, Bartoletti M, Tumietto F, Boriani G, Viale PL, Fanti S, Rapezzi C.Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis in patients with an implanted cardiac device: a prospective study.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014; 41:1617–1623. doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2773-z.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Ahmed FZ, James J, Cunnington C, Motwani M, Fullwood C, Hooper J, Burns P, Qamruddin A, Al-Bahrani G, Armstrong I, Tout D, Clarke B, Sandoe JA, Arumugam P, Mamas MA, Zaidi AM.Early diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device generator pocket infection using 18F-FDG-PET/CT.Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 16:521–530. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu295.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Saby L, Laas O, Habib G, Cammilleri S, Mancini J, Tessonnier L, Casalta JP, Gouriet F, Riberi A, Avierinos JF, Collart F, Mundler O, Raoult D, Thuny F.Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis: increased valvular 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a novel major criterion.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61:2374–2382. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.092.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Rouzet F, Chequer R, Benali K, Lepage L, Ghodbane W, Duval X, Iung B, Vahanian A, Le Guludec D, Hyafil F.Respective performance of 18F-FDG PET and radiolabeled leukocyte scintigraphy for the diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis.J Nucl Med. 2014; 55:1980–1985. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.141895.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Pizzi MN, Roque A, Fernández-Hidalgo N, Cuéllar-Calabria H, Ferreira-González I, Gonzàlez-Alujas MT, Oristrell G, Gracia-Sánchez L, González JJ, Rodríguez-Palomares J, Galiñanes M, Maisterra-Santos O, García-Dorado D, Castell-Conesa J, Almirante B, Aguadé-Bruix S, Tornos P.Improving the diagnosis of infective endocarditis in prosthetic valves and intracardiac devices with 18F-Fluordeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Angiography: initial results at an infective endocarditis referral center.Circulation. 2015; 132:1113–1126. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015316.LinkGoogle Scholar18. Asmar A, Ozcan C, Diederichsen AC, Thomassen A, Gill S.Clinical impact of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the extra cardiac work-up of patients with infective endocarditis.Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014; 15:1013–1019. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu054.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. Van Riet J, Hill EE, Gheysens O, Dymarkowski S, Herregods MC, Herijgers P, Peetermans WE, Mortelmans L.(18)F-FDG PET/CT for early detection of embolism and metastatic infection in patients with infective endocarditis.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37:1189–1197. doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1380-x.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Kuecken T, Jasaityte R, Bülow C, Gross J, Haase-Fielitz A, Neuss M and Butter C (2022) Prevalence and Predisposing Factors of Non-infectious Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Lead Masses as Incidental Finding During Transoesophageal Echocardiography: A Retrospective Cohort Study, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 10.3389/fcvm.2022.879505, 9 Rodríguez-Alfonso B, Mitjavila Casanovas M, Castro Urda V, Cobo Marcos M, Sánchez Romero I and Ramos-Martínez A (2021) PET/TC con 18F-FDG en la sospecha de infección asociada a dispositivos intracardiacos: rendimiento y utilidad diagnóstica, Revista Española de Cardiología, 10.1016/j.recesp.2020.01.015, 74:3, (238-246), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2021. Rodríguez-Alfonso B, Mitjavila Casanovas M, Castro Urda V, Cobo Marcos M, Sánchez Romero I and Ramos-Martínez A (2021) PET/CT with 18F-FDG in suspected intracardiac device-related infections: analysis of performance and diagnostic usefulness, Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 10.1016/j.rec.2020.01.026, 74:3, (238-246), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2021. Castillo Almeida N, Gurram P, Esquer Garrigos Z, Mahmood M, Baddour L and Sohail M (2020) Diagnostic imaging in infective endocarditis: a contemporary perspective, Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy, 10.1080/14787210.2020.1773260, 18:9, (911-925), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020. Pelletier-Galarneau M, Abikhzer G, Harel F and Dilsizian V (2020) Detection of Native and Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: Incremental Attributes of Functional FDG PET/CT over Morphologic Imaging, Current Cardiology Reports, 10.1007/s11886-020-01334-w, 22:9, Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020. Aljizeeri A, Small G, Malhotra S, Buechel R, Jain D, Dwivedi G and Al-Mallah M (2019) The role of cardiac imaging in the management of non-ischemic cardiovascular diseases in human immunodeficiency virus infection, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 10.1007/s12350-019-01676-1, 27:3, (801-818), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2020. Chen W and Dilsizian V (2020) Molecular Imaging of Cardiovascular Device Infection: Targeting the Bacteria or the Host–Pathogen Immune Response?, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 10.2967/jnumed.119.228304, 61:3, (319-326), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Ahmed F and Arumugam P (2017) 18F-FDG PET/CT now endorsed by guidelines across all types of CIED infection: Evidence limited but growing, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 10.1007/s12350-017-1119-1, 26:3, (971-974), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2019. Chen W, Sajadi M and Dilsizian V (2018) Merits of FDG PET/CT and Functional Molecular Imaging Over Anatomic Imaging With Echocardiography and CT Angiography for the Diagnosis of Cardiac Device Infections, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.08.026, 11:11, (1679-1691), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018. Sohns J, Bavendiek U, Ross T and Bengel F (2017) Targeting Cardiovascular Implant Infection, Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, 10:12, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017. Marchetta S, Withofs N, Erba P, Habib G, Hustinx R and Lancellotti P (2017) Radionuclide Imaging of Infective Endocarditis: State of Art and Future Perspective, Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports, 10.1007/s12410-017-9425-1, 10:8, Online publication date: 1-Aug-2017. Pettersson G, Coselli J, Pettersson G, Coselli J, Hussain S, Griffin B, Blackstone E, Gordon S, LeMaire S and Woc-Colburn L (2017) 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) consensus guidelines: Surgical treatment of infective endocarditis: Executive summary, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.09.093, 153:6, (1241-1258.e29), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017. Kircher M and Lapa C (2017) Novel Noninvasive Nuclear Medicine Imaging Techniques for Cardiac Inflammation, Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports, 10.1007/s12410-017-9400-x, 10:2, Online publication date: 1-Feb-2017. Gomes A, Glaudemans A, Touw D, van Melle J, Willems T, Maass A, Natour E, Prakken N, Borra R, van Geel P, Slart R, van Assen S and Sinha B (2017) Diagnostic value of imaging in infective endocarditis: a systematic review, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30141-4, 17:1, (e1-e14), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017. Wong D, Rubinshtein R and Keynan Y (2016) Alternative Cardiac Imaging Modalities to Echocardiography for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.07.053, 118:9, (1410-1418), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2016. Hacking C and Tatco V (2016) Infective endocarditis Radiopaedia.org, 10.53347/rID-47375 Caobelli F, Wollenweber T, Bavendiek U, Kühn C, Schütze C, Geworski L, Thackeray J, Bauersachs J, Haverich A and Bengel F (2016) Simultaneous dual-isotope solid-state detector SPECT for improved tracking of white blood cells in suspected endocarditis, European Heart Journal, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw231, (ehw231) Deresinski S (2015) In the Literature, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 10.1093/cid/civ856, 61:12, (iii-iv), Online publication date: 15-Dec-2015. September 22, 2015Vol 132, Issue 12 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018521PMID: 26276889 Originally publishedAugust 14, 2015 Keywordscardiac imaging techniquesEditorialsechocardiographyPDF download Advertisement SubjectsComputerized Tomography (CT)EchocardiographyImagingNuclear Cardiology and PET
Referência(s)