Reappraisal of [18F]FDG-PET/CT for diagnosis and management of cardiac implantable electronic device infections

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The role of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections requires better evaluation, especially in the diagnosis of systemic infections. We aimed to determine the following: a) the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in each CIED topographical region, b) the added value of [18F]FDG-PET/CT over transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in diagnosing systemic infections, c) spleen and bone marrow uptake in differentiating isolated local infections from systemic infections, and d) the potential application of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in follow-up.

METHODS

Retrospective single-center study including 54 cases and 54 controls from 2014 to 2021. The Primary endpoint was the diagnostic yield of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in each topographical CIED region. Secondary analyses described the performance of [18F]FDG-PET/CT compared with that of TEE in systemic infections, bone marrow and spleen uptake in systemic and isolated local infections, and the potential application of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in guiding cessation of chronic antibiotic suppression when completed device removal is not performed.

RESULTS

We analyzed 13 (24%) isolated local infections and 41 (76%) systemic infections. Overall, the specificity of [18F]FDG-PET/CT was 100% and sensitivity 85% (79% pocket, 57% subcutaneous lead, 22% endovascular lead, 10% intracardiac lead). When combined with TEE, [18F]FDG-PET/CT increased definite diagnosis o fsystemic infections from 34% to 56% (P=.04). Systemic infections with bacteremia showed higher spleen (P=.05) and bone marrow metabolism (P=.04) than local infections. Thirteen patients without complete device removal underwent a follow-up [18F]FDG-PET/CT, with no relapses after discontinuation of chronic antibiotic suppression in 6 cases with negative follow-up [18F]FDG-PET/CT.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of [18F]FDG-PET/CT for evaluating CIED infections was high in local infections but much lower in systemic infections. However, accuracy increased when [18F]FDG-PET/CT was combined with TEE in endovascular lead bacteremic infection. Spleen and bone marrow hypermetabolism could differentiate bacteremic systemic infection from local infection. Although further prospective studies are needed, follow-up [18F]FDG-PET/CT could play a potential role in the management of chronic antibiotic suppression therapy when complete device removal is unachievable.

Alternative Nuclear Imaging Tools for Infection Imaging

Purpose of Review

Cardiovascular infections are serious disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. Their diagnosis is challenging, requiring a proper management for a prompt recognition of the clinical manifestations, and a multidisciplinary approach involving cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, infectious diseases specialist, imagers, and microbiologists. Imaging plays a central role in the diagnostic workout, including molecular imaging techniques. In this setting, two different strategies might be used to image infections: the first is based on the use of agents targeting the microorganism responsible for the infection. Alternatively, we can target the components of the pathophysiological changes of the inflammatory process and/or the host response to the infectious pathogen can be considered. Understanding the strength and limitations of each strategy is crucial to select the most appropriate imaging tool.

Recent Findings

Currently, multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and nuclear imaging (¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and leucocyte scintigraphy) are part of the diagnostic strategies. The main role of nuclear medicine imaging (PET/CT and SPECT/CT) is the confirmation of valve/CIED involvement and/or associated perivalvular infection and the detection of distant septic embolism. Proper patients’ preparation, imaging acquisition, and reconstruction as well as imaging reading are crucial to maximize the diagnostic information.

Summary

In this manuscript, we described the use of molecular imaging techniques, in particular WBC imaging, in patients with infective endocarditis, cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections, and infections of composite aortic graft, underlying the strength and limitations of such approached as compared to the other imaging modalities.

International survey of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cardiologists regarding prevention and management of cardiac implantable electronic device infections

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can be life-saving. However, complications from CIED infection can be life-threatening, often requiring device removal. Despite publication of CIED infection management guidelines, there remains marked variation in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand and quantify these differences, we conducted a multinational survey of practitioners of CIED management.

METHODS

An electronic survey was sent to Heart Rhythm Society members, spanning 70 countries across six continents. All responses were collected anonymously.

RESULTS

227 out of 3,600 (6.3%) responded to the survey. The majority of surveys were completed by practitioners from the United States (168; 68.3%) and 53.8% of these practiced in academic medical centers. The large majority (92.7%) of sites had protocols to ensure appropriate timing of prophylactic antibiotics. Superficial (incisional) site infections were treated with antibiotics alone 52.5% of the time (consistent with guidelines); in contrast, deep pocket infections were treated with antibiotics (with device removal) in accordance to guidelines only 37.4% of the time. Almost all providers (98.7%) were inclined to perform complete hardware removal in cases of CIED-related endocarditis. In contrast, 82.2% of survey participants suggested complete CIED system removal in patients with an occult Gram-positive bacteremia, 65.5% with occult Gram-negative bacteremia, and 59.3% with prolonged bacteremia due to a source other than CIED.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest wide variability in clinical practice in managing CIED infection with significant deviations from published guidelines. There is critical need to increase awareness and develop institutional protocols to ensure adherence with evidence-based guidelines to optimize outcomes.