Diagnostic Yield of F-FDG PET/CT in Suspected Diagnosis of Vascular Graft Infection: A Prospective Cohort Study

Overview

Journal J Nucl Cardiol

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2018 Jun 17

PMID 29907934

Citations 6

Authors

Hans Bowles

Juan Ambrosioni

Gaspar Mestres

Marta Hernandez-Meneses

Nuria Sanchez

Jaime Llopis

Xavier Yugueros

Manel Almela

Asuncion Moreno

Vicenc Riambau

David Fuster

Jose M Miro

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Prosthetic vascular graft infection (PVGI) is a severe complication associated with high morbidity and mortality. Clinical diagnosis is complex, requiring image testing such as CT angiography or leukocyte scintigraphy, which has considerable limitations. The aim of this study was to know the diagnostic yield of PET/CT with F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) in patients with suspected PVGI.

Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study including 49 patients with suspected PVGI, median age of 62 ± 14 years. Three uptake patterns were defined following published recommendations: (i) focal, (ii) patched (PVGI criteria), and (iii) diffuse (no PVGI criterion).

Results: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for F-FDG-PET/CT were 88%, 79%, 67%, and 93%, respectively. F-FDG-PET/CT identified 14/16 cases of PVGI showing a focal (n = 10) or patched pattern (n = 4), being true negative in 26/33 cases with either a diffuse pattern (n = 16) or without uptake (n = 10). Five of the seven false-positive cases (71%) showed a patched pattern and all coincided with the application of adhesives for PVG placement.

Conclusions: F-FDG-PET/CT is a useful technique for the diagnosis of PVGI. A patched pattern on PET/CT in patients in whom adhesives were applied for prosthetic vascular graft placement does not indicate infection.

Citing Articles

Appearance of aseptic vascular grafts after endovascular aortic repair on [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

Bennett P, Tomas M, Koch C, Nichols K, Palestro C World J Radiol. 2023; 15(8):241-249.

PMID: 37662425 PMC: 10473915. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v15.i8.241.

Real-world assessment of the clinical utility of whole body 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of infection.

Medvedeva N, Radcliffe C, Malinis M, Chen M, Azar M PLoS One. 2022; 17(11):e0277403.

PMID: 36374789 PMC: 9662742. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277403.

Evidence-based guideline of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) on imaging infection in vascular grafts.

Lauri C, Signore A, Glaudemans A, Treglia G, Gheysens O, Slart R Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022; 49(10):3430-3451.

PMID: 35376992 PMC: 9308572. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05769-x.

Prosthetic vascular graft infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of 18FDG PET/CT.

Mahmoodi Z, Salarzaei M, Sheikh M Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021; 70(3):219-229.

PMID: 34309812 DOI: 10.1007/s11748-021-01682-6.

Assessing cardiovascular infection and inflammation with FDG-PET.

Martineau P, Gregoire J, Harel F, Pelletier-Galarneau M Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 11(1):46-58.

PMID: 33688455 PMC: 7936252.

References

Baddour L, Bettmann M, Bolger A, Epstein A, Ferrieri P, Gerber M . Nonvalvular cardiovascular device-related infections. Circulation. 2003; 108(16):2015-31. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000093201.57771.47. View

Jamar F, Buscombe J, Chiti A, Christian P, Delbeke D, Donohoe K . EANM/SNMMI guideline for 18F-FDG use in inflammation and infection. J Nucl Med. 2013; 54(4):647-58. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.112524. View

Bruggink J, Glaudemans A, Saleem B, Meerwaldt R, Alkefaji H, Prins T . Accuracy of FDG-PET-CT in the diagnostic work-up of vascular prosthetic graft infection. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010; 40(3):348-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.05.016. View

Granados U, Fuster D, Pericas J, Llopis J, Ninot S, Quintana E . Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Infective Endocarditis and Implantable Cardiac Electronic Device Infection: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57(11):1726-1732. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.173690. View

Guenther S, Cyran C, Rominger A, Saam T, Kazmierzcak P, Bagaev E . The relevance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in diagnosing prosthetic graft infections post cardiac and proximal thoracic aortic surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015; 21(4):450-8. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivv178. View

Keidar Z, Pirmisashvili N, Leiderman M, Nitecki S, Israel O . 18F-FDG uptake in noninfected prosthetic vascular grafts: incidence, patterns, and changes over time. J Nucl Med. 2014; 55(3):392-5. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.128173. View

Lyons O, Baguneid M, Barwick T, Bell R, Foster N, Homer-Vanniasinkam S . Diagnosis of Aortic Graft Infection: A Case Definition by the Management of Aortic Graft Infection Collaboration (MAGIC). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016; 52(6):758-763. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.09.007. View

Sah B, Husmann L, Mayer D, Scherrer A, Rancic Z, Puippe G . Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in vascular graft infections. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015; 49(4):455-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.12.024. View

Wasselius J, Malmstedt J, Kalin B, Larsson S, Sundin A, Hedin U . High 18F-FDG Uptake in synthetic aortic vascular grafts on PET/CT in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(10):1601-5. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.053462. View

10.

Erba P, Leo G, Sollini M, Tascini C, Boni R, Berchiolli R . Radiolabelled leucocyte scintigraphy versus conventional radiological imaging for the management of late, low-grade vascular prosthesis infections. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 41(2):357-68. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2582-9. View

11.

Saleem B, Pol R, Slart R, Reijnen M, Zeebregts C . 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT scanning in diagnosing vascular prosthetic graft infection. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:471971. PMC: 4156987. DOI: 10.1155/2014/471971. View

12.

Orton D, Leveen R, Saigh J, Culp W, Fidler J, Lynch T . Aortic prosthetic graft infections: radiologic manifestations and implications for management. Radiographics. 2000; 20(4):977-93. DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.20.4.g00jl12977. View

13.

Chiesa R, Astore D, Frigerio S, Garriboli L, Piccolo G, Castellano R . Vascular prosthetic graft infection: epidemiology, bacteriology, pathogenesis and treatment. Acta Chir Belg. 2002; 102(4):238-47. DOI: 10.1080/00015458.2002.11679305. View

14.

Schouten L, Verberne H, Bouma B, van Eck-Smit B, Mulder B . Surgical glue for repair of the aortic root as a possible explanation for increased F-18 FDG uptake. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008; 15(1):146-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.11.009. View

15.

Spacek M, Belohlavek O, Votrubova J, Sebesta P, Stadler P . Diagnostics of "non-acute" vascular prosthesis infection using 18F-FDG PET/CT: our experience with 96 prostheses. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008; 36(5):850-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-008-1002-z. View

16.

Low R, Wall S, Jeffrey Jr R, Sollitto R, Reilly L, Tierney Jr L . Aortoenteric fistula and perigraft infection: evaluation with CT. Radiology. 1990; 175(1):157-62. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.175.1.2315475. View

17.

Fernandez-Lopez R, de-Bonilla-Damia A, Acevedo-Banez I, Luque-Marquez R, Borrego-Dorado I . Usefulness of F-FDG PET/CT in a case of suspected vascular graft infection. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2016; 36(3):185-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.remn.2016.06.008. View

18.

Keidar Z, Engel A, Hoffman A, Israel O, Nitecki S . Prosthetic vascular graft infection: the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48(8):1230-6. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.040253. View

19.

Samson R, Veith F, Janko G, Gupta S, Scher L . A modified classification and approach to the management of infections involving peripheral arterial prosthetic grafts. J Vasc Surg. 1988; 8(2):147-53. View

20.

Berger P, Vaartjes I, Scholtens A, Moll F, de Borst G, de Keizer B . Differential FDG-PET Uptake Patterns in Uninfected and Infected Central Prosthetic Vascular Grafts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015; 50(3):376-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.06.007. View