Metabolic volume performs better than SUVmax in the detection of left ventricular assist device driveline infection

  • Nemanja Avramovic
  • Angelo Maria Dell’Aquila
  • Matthias Weckesser
  • Danka Milankovic
  • Alexis Vrachimis
  • Jürgen R. Sindermann
  • Christian Wenning
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

A continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a new and highly promising therapy in supporting end-stage heart failure patients, either bridging them to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy. Infection is one of the major complications associated with LVAD implants. 18F–FDG PET/CT has already been shown to be useful in the detection of LVAD infection. The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different PET analysis techniques (visual grading versus SUVmax and metabolic volume).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 48 patients with implanted LVAD who underwent an 18F–FDG PET/CT that were either suspected to have a driveline or device infection or inflammation of unknown origin. PET/CT was analyzed qualitatively (visual grading) and quantitatively (SUVmax and metabolic volume) and matched to the final clinical diagnosis concerning driveline infection. The final diagnosis (standard of reference) was made at the end of clinically recorded follow-up or transplantation and included microbiological cultures of the driveline exit site and/or surgical samples, and clinical signs of infection despite negative cultures as well as recurrence of symptoms.

Results

Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value were 87.5%, 79%, 81% and 86% for visual score, 87.5%, 87.5%, 87.5% and 87.5% for SUVmax and 96%, 87.5%, 88.5%, 95.5% for metabolic volume, respectively. ROC analysis revealed an AUC of .929 for SUVmax and .969 for metabolic volume. Both SUVmax and metabolic volume had a high detection rate of patients with driveline infection (21/24 = 91.5% true positive vs. 23/26 = 88.5% true positive, respectively). However, metabolic volume detected more patients without any infection correctly (1/22 = 4.5% false negative vs. 3/24 = 12.5% false negative).

Conclusions

18F–FDG PET/CT is a valuable tool for the diagnosis of LVAD driveline infection with high diagnostic accuracy. Particularly the use of the metabolic volume yields very high accuracy and performs slightly better than SUVmax.

Keywords

LVAD PET/CT Driveline infection Metabolic volume 

References

  1. 1.
    Wieselthaler GM, O’Driscoll G, Jansz P, Khaghani A, Strueber M. Initial clinical experience with a novel left ventricular assist device with a magnetically levitated rotor in a multi-institutional trial. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29(11):1218–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dell’Aquila AM, Schneider SR, Schlarb D, Redwan B, Sindermann JR, Ellger B, et al. Initial clinical experience with the HeartWare left ventricular assist system: a single-center report. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95(1):170–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dell’Aquila AM, Schneider SR, Stypmann J, Ellger B, Redwan B, Schlarb D, et al. Survival results after implantation of intrapericardial third-generation centrifugal assist device: an INTERMACS-matched comparison analysis. Artif Organs. 2014;38(5):383–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldstein DJ, Naftel D, Holman W, Bellumkonda L, Pamboukian SV, Pagani FD, et al. Continuous-flow devices and percutaneous site infections: clinical outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31(11):1151–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pizzi MN, Roque A, Fernandez-Hidalgo N, Cuellar-Calabria H, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Gonzalez-Alujas MT, et al. Improving the diagnosis of infective endocarditis in prosthetic valves and Intracardiac devices with 18F-Fluordeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography angiography: initial results at an infective endocarditis referral center. Circulation. 2015;132(12):1113–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jimenez-Ballve A, Perez-Castejon MJ, Delgado-Bolton RC, Sanchez-Enrique C, Vilacosta I, Vivas D, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F–FDG PET/CT in prosthetic infective endocarditis and cardiac implantable electronic device infection: comparison of different interpretation criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(13):2401–2412.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sarrazin JF, Philippon F, Tessier M, Guimond J, Molin F, Champagne J, et al. Usefulness of fluorine-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography for identification of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(18):1616–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dell’Aquila AM, Mastrobuoni S, Alles S, Wenning C, Henryk W, Schneider SR, et al. Contributory role of fluorine 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the diagnosis and clinical Management of Infections in patients supported with a Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(1):87–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malek E, Sendilnathan A, Yellu M, Petersen A, Fernandez-Ulloa M, Driscoll JJ. Metabolic tumor volume on interim PET is a better predictor of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma than semiquantitative methods. Blood Cancer J. 2015;5:e326.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cottereau AS, Becker S, Broussais F, Casasnovas O, Kanoun S, Roques M, et al. Prognostic value of baseline total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV0) measured on FDG-PET/CT in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):719–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The University of Alabama at Birmingham SoM. Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support. www.uab.edu/intermacs. Accessed 13 April 2012.
  12. 12.
    Juergens KU, Oei ML, Weckesser M, Franzius C, Wormanns D, Schober O, et al. Whole-body imaging of oncologic patients using 16-channel PET-CT. Evaluation of an i.V. Contrast enhanced MDCT protocol. Nuklearmedizin. 2008;47(1):30–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weckesser M, Stegger L, Juergens KU, Wormanns D, Heindel W, Schober O. Correlation between respiration-induced thoracic expansion and a shift of central structures. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(7):1614–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the Management of Infective Endocarditis: the task force for the management of infective endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3075–128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, Nettles R, Fowler VG Jr, Ryan T, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30:633–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Department of Cardiac SurgeryUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations