Comparison of diagnostic performance of transesophageal echocardiography and positron emission tomography in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections
Kardiologia Polska, ISSN: 1897-4279, Vol: 82, Issue: 10, Page: 958-966
2024
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Background: The modified Duke criteria and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) are often insufficient to diagnose infective endocarditis in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). F-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) is a promising method for detecting lead endocarditis. Aims: The study aimed to compare diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and TEE in detecting lead endocarditis (LE). Methods: We included 40 patients admitted to the hospital for CIED infection. Patients were classified as “LE-positive” and “LE-negative” according to TEE and 18F-FDG PET/CT findings. After three months of follow-up, the patients'lead cultures, tissue and blood cultures, and clinical responses after antibiotic treatment were reviewed using the Duke criteria. The final exact diagnosis was compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT and TEE findings. Results: No involvement was observed on 18F-FDG PET/CT in 12 patients (30%). The remaining 25% of patients had device pocket involvement, and two patients had systemic involvement. In the follow-up of 23 patients diagnosed with LE by TEE, 14 were consistent with LE. Seventeen of 18 patients with suspicion of LE were diagnosed with definite LE by 18F-FDG PET/CT. Six of the 22 patients with negative 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were false negative and diagnosed as definite infective endocarditis. 18F-FDG PET/CT had sensitivity of 73.9% and specificity of 94.1%. It was observed that there was a statistically significant difference between TEE and PET (P = 0.006). Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET/CT is superior to TEE in diagnosing IE in patients with CIED.
Bibliographic Details
Polskie Towarzystwo Kardiologiczne
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know