18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography of cardiac implantable electronic device infections

The diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is challenging because of its variable presentations. We studied the value of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the detection of CIED infection. Thirty patient...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of nuclear cardiology 2021-12, Vol.28 (6), p.2992-3003
Hauptverfasser: Salomäki, Soile Pauliina, Saraste, Antti, Kemppainen, Jukka, Hurme, Saija, Knuuti, Juhani, Nuutila, Pirjo, Seppänen, Marko, Roivainen, Anne, Airaksinen, Juhani, Salo, Tiina, Oksi, Jarmo, Pirilä, Laura, Hohenthal, Ulla
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is challenging because of its variable presentations. We studied the value of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the detection of CIED infection. Thirty patients with suspected CIED infection underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT. The control group was ten patients with asymptomatic CIED who underwent cancer-related 18F-FDG-PET/CT. 18F-FDG-PET/CT was evaluated visually, semiquantitatively as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and target-to-background ratio (TBR). Final diagnosis of CIED infection was based on clinical and bacteriological data. 18F-FDG-PET/CT was visually positive in all 9 patients with recent (≤ 8 weeks) implantation of CIED, but only 4 had confirmed CIED infection. 18F-FDG-PET/CT was true positive in 9 out of 21 cases with remote implantation of CIED and false positive in 3 (14.3%) cases. 18F-FDG-PET/CT was also false positive in 3 (30%) cases of control group. The SUVmax of the pocket area was significantly higher in patients with CIED infection than in the control group (4.8 ± 2.4 vs 2.0 ± .8, P < .001). By using the cut-off value of TBR ≥ 1.8, sensitivity of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the diagnosis of CIED infection in patients with remote implantation was 90% and specificity 73%, PPV 75%, and NPV 89%. 18F-FDG-PET/CT is a sensitive but nonspecific method in the diagnosis of CIED infection.
ISSN:1071-3581
1532-6551
DOI:10.1007/s12350-020-02256-4