Comparing diagnostic accuracy of
Aged
Blood Vessel Prosthesis
/ microbiology
Contrast Media
/ chemistry
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
/ analysis
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
Male
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Postoperative Complications
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Prosthesis-Related Infections
/ diagnostic imaging
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Veins
/ transplantation
CT
Diagnostic accuracy
FDG
PET/CT
Vascular graft infection
Journal
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging
ISSN: 1619-7089
Titre abrégé: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101140988
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
04
08
2018
accepted:
25
10
2018
pubmed:
15
11
2018
medline:
21
7
2020
entrez:
15
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography with PET/CT and CE-CT were performed prospectively in 23 patients with suspected VGI. Diagnostic accuracy for PET/CT was assessed by using previously suggested cut-off points for maximum standardized uptake values (SUV Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of PET/CT for the diagnosis of VGI was 100%, 50%, 100%, 72.2%, and 78.3%, using the most favorable SUV The diagnostic accuracy of combined CE-PET/CT in patients with suspected VGI is very high. The combination of the high sensitivity of PET/CT in detecting metabolically active foci in infection, and the high specificity of CE-CT in detecting anatomic alterations, appears to be the reason why combined imaging outperforms stand-alone imaging in diagnosing VGI and may be supportive in future decision-making of difficult cases of suspected VGI. Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01821664.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography with
METHODS
METHODS
PET/CT and CE-CT were performed prospectively in 23 patients with suspected VGI. Diagnostic accuracy for PET/CT was assessed by using previously suggested cut-off points for maximum standardized uptake values (SUV
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of PET/CT for the diagnosis of VGI was 100%, 50%, 100%, 72.2%, and 78.3%, using the most favorable SUV
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The diagnostic accuracy of combined CE-PET/CT in patients with suspected VGI is very high. The combination of the high sensitivity of PET/CT in detecting metabolically active foci in infection, and the high specificity of CE-CT in detecting anatomic alterations, appears to be the reason why combined imaging outperforms stand-alone imaging in diagnosing VGI and may be supportive in future decision-making of difficult cases of suspected VGI. Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01821664.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30426151
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4205-y
pii: 10.1007/s00259-018-4205-y
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01821664']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1359-1368Subventions
Organisme : Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
ID : 32473B_163132/1
Références
Eur J Nucl Med. 2000 Jul;27(7):822-32
pubmed: 10952494
J Vasc Surg. 2005 Nov;42(5):919-25
pubmed: 16275448
Br J Radiol. 2007 Jun;80(954):437-45
pubmed: 17329683
J Nucl Med. 2007 Aug;48(8):1230-6
pubmed: 17631553
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 May;36(5):850-8
pubmed: 19107480
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010 Sep;40(3):348-54
pubmed: 20576451
Semin Vasc Surg. 2011 Dec;24(4):182-90
pubmed: 22230672
Radiology. 1990 Apr;175(1):157-62
pubmed: 2315475
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 Jun;43(6):1183-7
pubmed: 23333838
Swiss Med Wkly. 2013 Jan 24;143:w13754
pubmed: 23348860
Semin Nucl Med. 2013 Sep;43(5):396-402
pubmed: 23905620
J Nucl Med. 2014 Mar;55(3):392-5
pubmed: 24516259
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Apr;61(4):965-71
pubmed: 25498161
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015 Apr;49(4):455-64
pubmed: 25648371
Circulation. 2015 Sep 22;132(12):1113-26
pubmed: 26276890
Circulation. 2016 Nov 15;134(20):e412-e460
pubmed: 27737955
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016 Dec;52(6):758-763
pubmed: 27771318
J Nucl Med. 2017 Nov;58(11):1827-1830
pubmed: 28473596
Zentralbl Chir. 2017 Oct;142(5):502-505
pubmed: 29078247
J Vasc Surg. 1997 Feb;25(2):277-84; discussion 285-6
pubmed: 9052562