Back to Search
Start Over
Normal imaging findings after ascending aorta prosthesis implantation on 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography with computed tomography.
- Source :
-
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology [J Nucl Cardiol] 2022 Dec; Vol. 29 (6), pp. 2938-2948. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Oct 27. - Publication Year :
- 2022
-
Abstract
- Background: To diagnose abnormal <superscript>18</superscript> F-Fluorodeoxyglucose ( <superscript>18</superscript> F-FDG) uptake in suspected endocarditis after aortic root and/or ascending aorta prosthesis (ARAP) implantation, it is important to first establish the normal periprosthetic uptake on positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT).<br />Methods: Patients with uncomplicated ARAP implantation were prospectively included and underwent <superscript>18</superscript> F-FDG-PET/CT at either 12 (± 2) weeks (group 1) or 52 (± 8) weeks (group 2) after procedure. Uptake on three different locations of the prosthesis ("cranial anastomosis (CA)," "prosthetic heart valve (PHV)," "ascending aorta prosthesis (AAP)") was scored visually (none/low/intermediate/high) and quantitatively (maximum standardized uptake value (SUV <subscript>max</subscript> ) and target-to-background ratio (SUV <subscript>ratio</subscript> ).<br />Results: In total, 20 patients (group 1: n = 10, group 2: n = 10) (mean age 64±7 years, 70% male) were included. Both groups had similar visual uptake intensity for all measured areas (CA: mostly low-intermediate (16/20 (80%)), p = .17; PHV: low-intermediate (16/20 (80%)), p = .88; AAP: low-intermediate (19/20 (95%)), p = .48). SUV <subscript>max</subscript> for CA was 5.6 [4.1-6.1] and 3.8 [3.1-5.9] (median [IQR], p = .19), and around PHV 5.0 [4.1-5.7] and 6.3 [4.6-7.1] (p = .11) for groups 1 and 2, respectively. SUV <subscript>ratio</subscript> for CA was 2.8 [2.3-3.2] and 2.0 [1.7-2.6] (median [IQR], p = .07) and around PHV 2.5 [2.4-2.8] and 2.9 [2.3-3.5] (median [IQR], p = .26) for groups 1 and 2, respectively.<br />Conclusion: No significant differences were observed between PET/CT findings at 3 months and 1 year after ARAP implantation, warranting caution in interpretation of PET/CT in the first year after implantation.<br /> (© 2021. The Author(s).)
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1532-6551
- Volume :
- 29
- Issue :
- 6
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 34708302
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-021-02826-0