Cargando…
Normal imaging findings after ascending aorta prosthesis implantation on (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography with computed tomography
BACKGROUND: To diagnose abnormal (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9834100/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34708302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-021-02826-0 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: To diagnose abnormal (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)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). METHODS: Patients with uncomplicated ARAP implantation were prospectively included and underwent (18)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(max)) and target-to-background ratio (SUV(ratio)). 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(max) 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(ratio) 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. 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12350-021-02826-0. |
---|