The valve uptake index: improving assessment of prosthetic valve endocarditis and updating [18F]FDG PET/CT(A) imaging criteria.
Endocarditis
/ diagnostic imaging
Endocarditis, Bacterial
/ diagnostic imaging
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Heart Valve Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Humans
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Prosthesis-Related Infections
/ diagnostic imaging
Radiopharmaceuticals
Retrospective Studies
infective endocarditis
nuclear imaging
positron emission tomography
prosthetic heart valves
Journal
European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging
ISSN: 2047-2412
Titre abrégé: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101573788
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 08 2022
22 08 2022
Historique:
received:
23
09
2021
accepted:
13
12
2021
pubmed:
10
1
2022
medline:
13
8
2022
entrez:
9
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) by positron emission computed tomography angiography (PET/CTA) is based on visual and quantitative morpho-metabolic features. However, the fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake pattern can be sometimes visually unclear and susceptible to subjectivity. This study aimed to validate a new parameter, the valve uptake index [VUI, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax)-mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean)/SUVmax], designed to provide a more objective indication of the distribution of metabolic activity. Secondly, to re-evaluate the utility of traditionally used PVE imaging criteria and determine the potential value of adding the VUI in the diagnostic algorithm of PVE. Retrospective analysis of 122 patients (135 prosthetic valves) admitted for suspicion of endocarditis, with a conclusive diagnosis of definite (N = 57) or rejected (N = 65) PVE, and who had undergone a cardiac PET/CTA scan as part of the diagnostic evaluation. We measured the VUI and recorded the SUVmax, SUVratio, uptake pattern, and the presence of endocarditis-related anatomic lesions. The VUI, SUVmax, and SUVratio values were 0.54 ± 0.1 vs. 0.36 ± 0.08, 7.68 ± 3.07 vs. 3.72 ± 1.11, and 4.28 ± 1.93 vs. 2.16 ± 0.95 in the 'definite' PVE group vs. the 'rejected' group, respectively (mean ± SD; P < 0.001). A cut-off value of VUI > 0.45 showed a sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for PVE of 85%, 88%, and 86.7% and increased diagnostic ability for confirming endocarditis when combined with the standard diagnostic criteria. The VUI demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for PVE, even increasing the diagnostic power of the traditionally used morphometabolic parameters, which also confirmed their own diagnostic performance. More research is needed to assess whether the integration of the VUI into the PVE diagnostic algorithm may clarify doubtful cases and thus improve the diagnostic yield of PET/CTA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34999818
pii: 6498863
doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeab279
pmc: PMC9365301
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1260-1271Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: none declared.
Références
Circulation. 2021 Feb 2;143(5):e72-e227
pubmed: 33332150
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Oct;13(10):2239-2244
pubmed: 31954645
Eur Heart J. 2018 Nov 1;39(41):3739-3749
pubmed: 29351615
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Jan 1;21(1):24-33
pubmed: 31539031
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Mar;10(3):e005585
pubmed: 28298285
Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol (Engl Ed). 2018 May - Jun;37(3):163-171
pubmed: 29496402
Circulation. 2015 Sep 22;132(12):1113-26
pubmed: 26276890
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Sep;45(10):1795-1815
pubmed: 29799067
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jun 11;61(23):2374-82
pubmed: 23583251
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2017 Feb;19(2):15
pubmed: 28185172
J Nucl Cardiol. 2018 Dec;25(6):2084-2091
pubmed: 28585026
Eur Heart J. 2015 Nov 21;36(44):3075-3128
pubmed: 26320109
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Oct;9(10):1224-1227
pubmed: 27639767
Circulation. 2018 Oct 2;138(14):1412-1427
pubmed: 30018167