Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3723_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
190
https://t.me/medicina_free
B. Mahida et al.
ba
d
Fig. 14.3 A 72-year-old male referred for suspected left
ventricular assist device (LVAD) infection, 2months after
device implantation with fever and Klebsiella pneumoniapositive blood culture. The patient underwent FDG PET/
CT and WBC SPECT/CT 2weeks later: (a) fused coronal
PET/CT images and (d) FDG PET maximum intensity
projection images showed multifocal device-related infection on all components, including a focal intense FDG
uptake along the driveline (yellow arrows) corresponding
to a percutaneous exit infection that was proven after sur-
c
fe
gery. (b) Fused axial PET/CT and (c) axial FDG PET
showed intense FDG uptake on the inow cannula (red
arrows) concordant with WBC SPECT/CT images (e) and
(f) (yellow arrows) consistent with infection. FDG uptake
along the LVAD pump (yellow arrows) was not associated
with corresponding increased uptake on WBC SPECT/
CT images obtained 24h after tracer injection. The device
was not removed, and the patient was treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy
Comparison withWBC SPECT/CT
WBC SPECT/CT is the current benchmark radionuclide technique for infection imaging in soft
tissues [52]. Although there are limited data on
the role of WBC SPECT/CT in CIED infection,
the available results show excellent specicity
and signicant sensitivity [44, 53, 54].
FDG PET/CT has a higher sensitivity for the
detection of CIED infection/CDRIE than WBC
SPECT/CT because of its greater spatial resolution and contrast. Total-body FDG PET/CT also
has the advantage of detecting distant infection
sites and portal of entry. However, WBC SPECT/
CT has a higher specicity than FDG PET/CT.In
their retrospective study, Calais et al. evaluated
48 consecutive patients with clinically suspected
CIED infection who had both FDG PET/CT and
WBC SPECT/CT, reporting a sensitivity of 100%
for FDG PET/CT and a specicity of 100% for
WBC SPECT/CT. Prolonged antibiotherapy
before imaging had the same consequence on
both modalities by decreasing their sensitivity
which emphasizes the importance of performing
nuclear medicine imaging before or shortly after
initiating treatment. In this study, more than half
of patients that were initially considered with
possible CIED infection based on the modied
Duke-Li score at admission and were correctly
reclassied as rejected or denite infection based
on the results FDG PET/CT or WBC SPECT/CT
scan. Hence, in the presence of a suspected CIED
infection, FDG PET/CT should be performed as
rst-line nuclear imaging technique and can be
followed by WBC SPECT/CT imaging in case of
an inconclusive result (Fig.14.4).

14 Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection
https://t.me/medicina_free
191
ab
de
Fig. 14.4 Concordant true-positive 18F-urodeoxyglucose
(FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and radiolabeled white blood cell (WBC)
single photon emission computed tomography/computed
tomography (SPECT/CT) in a 63-year-old male who
underwent cardiac electronic device (CIED) implantation
4 months before FDG PET/CT images. The patient was
referred for fever, non- conclusive echocardiography and
negative blood cultures. As per the Duke-Li criteria, CIED
infection was initially graded as possible. FDG PET/CT
showed intense 18FDG uptake along the leads in the superior vena cava and right atrium suspicious of lead infection
(yellow arrows). The extraction of the device conrmed the
lead infection: (a) FDG PET fused coronal images; (b)
fused axial PET/CT images; (c) axial PET images; (d)
fused coronal WBC SPECT/CT images obtained 24h after
tracer injection; (e) fused axial WBC SPECT/CT images;
(f) axial WBC SPECT images
c
f
Perspectives
FDG PET/CT and WBC SPECT/CT are included
as complementary tools in the Novel 2019
International CIED Infection Criteria [2].
However, FDG PET/CT lacks specicity, and
WBC SPECT/CT requires dedicated equipment,
direct handling of blood products, is time consuming and has limited capacity for total body
scanning. Ideally, the key strengths of both techniques should be combined. The development of
new radiopharmaceuticals and the technological
advancements of detection systems may improve
further the performances of nuclear imaging of
infection.
Conclusions
FDG PET/CT is a highly sensitive imaging technique now established in the management of
patients with CIED and LVAD infections, particularly in patients with suspected bloodstream infec-
tion and no specic signs of hardware involvement.
Whole-body FDG PET/CT inuences the therapeutic decisions and outcomes by improving the
diagnosis performance of the Duke-Li score, by
enabling assessment of the extracardiac components of the device, and by identifying the portal of
entry or septic emboli. FDG PET/CT’s lack of
specicity may be overcome by associating WBC
SPECT/CT as a second- line imaging technique
when needed. FDG PET/CT and WBC SPECT/
CT should be performed in early stage of suspected infection to avoid sensitivity loss following
antibiotics initiation.
References
1. Mond HG, Proclemer A. The 11th world survey
of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverterdebrillators: calendar year 2009: a world Society
of Arrhythmia’s project. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol.
2011;34(8):1013–27.
2. Blomström-Lundqvist C, Traykov V, Erba PA, Burri
H, Nielsen JC, Bongiorni MG, etal. European heart

192
https://t.me/medicina_free
B. Mahida et al.
rhythm association (EHRA) international consensus
document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat
cardiac implantable electronic device infectionsendorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the
Asia Pacic Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the
Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS),
International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious
Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of
Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
(ESCMID) in collaboration with the European
Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS).
Europace. 2020;22(4):515–49.
3. Gitenay E, Molin F, Blais S, Tremblay V, Gervais P,
Plourde B, etal. Cardiac implantable electronic device
infection: detailed analysis of cost implications. Can J
Cardiol. 2018;34(8):1026–32.
4. Nagpal A, Baddour LM, Sohail MR.Microbiology and
pathogenesis of cardiovascular implantable electronic
device infections. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol.
2012;5(2):433–41.
5. Krahn AD, Longtin Y, Philippon F, Birnie DH,
Manlucu J, Angaran P, et al. Prevention of arrhythmia device infection trial: the PADIT trial. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2018;72(24):3098–109.
6. Patel R. Biolms and antimicrobial resistance. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 2005;437:41–7.
7. Bongiorni MG, Burri H, Deharo JC, Starck C,
Kennergren C, Saghy L, et al. 2018 EHRA expert
consensus statement on lead extraction: recommendations on denitions, endpoints, research trial design,
and data collection requirements for clinical scientic
studies and registries: endorsed by APHRS/HRS/
LAHRS.Europace. 2018;20(7):1217.
8. Athan E, Chu VH, Tattevin P, Selton-Suty C, Jones P,
Naber C, etal. Clinical characteristics and outcome of
infective endocarditis involving implantable cardiac
devices. JAMA. 2012;307(16):1727–35.
9. Rodriguez Y, Greenspon AJ, Sohail MR, Carrillo
RG. Cardiac device-related endocarditis complicated by spinal abscess. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol.
2012;35(3):269–74.
10. Dundar C, Tigen K, Tanalp C, Izgi A, Karaahmet
T, Cevik C, et al. The prevalence of echocardiographic accretions on the leads of patients with
permanent pacemakers. J Am Soc Echocardiogr.
2011;24(7):803–7.
11. Rickard J, Tarakji K, Cheng A, Spragg D, Cantillon
DJ, Martin DO, etal. Survival of patients with biventricular devices after device infection, extraction, and
reimplantation. JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1(6):508–13.
12. Mochizuki T, Tsukamoto E, Kuge Y, Kanegae K,
Zhao S, Hikosaka K, et al. FDG uptake and glucose transporter subtype expressions in experimental tumor and inammation models. J Nucl Med.
2001;42(10):1551–5.
13. Daneshmand MA, Rajagopal K, Lima B, Khorram N,
Blue LJ, Lodge AJ, etal. Left ventricular assist device
destination therapy versus extended criteria cardiac
transplant. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(4):1205–9; discussion 1210.
14. Kilic A, Acker MA, Atluri P. Dealing with surgical
left ventricular assist device complications. J Thorac
Dis. 2015;7(12):2158–64.
15. Hannan MM, Husain S, Mattner F, Danziger-Isakov
L, Drew RJ, Corey GR, etal. Working formulation
for the standardization of denitions of infections in
patients using ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung
Transplant. 2011;30(4):375–84.
16. Nienaber JJC, Kusne S, Riaz T, Walker RC, Baddour
LM, Wright AJ, etal. Clinical manifestations and management of left ventricular assist device- associated
infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57(10):1438–48.
17. Litzler P-Y, Manrique A, Etienne M, Salles A, EdetSanson A, Vera P, et al. Leukocyte SPECT/CT for
detecting infection of left-ventricular-assist devices:
preliminary results. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(7):1044–8.
18. Kim J, Feller ED, Chen W, Liang Y, Dilsizian
V. FDG PET/CT for early detection and localization
of left ventricular assist device infection: impact on
patient management and outcome. JACC Cardiovasc
Imaging. 2019;12(4):722–9.
19. de Vaugelade C, Mesguich C, Nubret K, Camou
F, Greib C, Dournes G, et al. Infections in patients
using ventricular-assist devices: comparison of the
diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT scan
and leucocyte-labeled scintigraphy. J Nucl Cardiol.
2019;26(1):42–55.
20. Tam MC, Patel VN, Weinberg RL, Hulten EA,
Aaronson KD, Pagani FD, etal. Diagnostic accuracy
of FDG PET/CT in suspected LVAD infections: a case
series, systematic review, and meta-analysis. JACC
Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13(5):1191–202.
21. Ten Hove D, Treglia G, Slart RHJA, Damman K,
Wouthuyzen-Bakker M, Postma DF, etal. The value
of 18F-FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of devicerelated infections in patients with a left ventricular
assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(1):241–53.
22. Uslan DZ, Sohail MR, St Sauver JL, Friedman PA,
Hayes DL, Stoner SM, et al. Permanent pacemaker
and implantable cardioverter debrillator infection: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med.
2007;167(7):669–75.
23. Knigina L, Kühn C, Kutschka I, Oswald H, Klein G,
Haverich A, etal. Treatment of patients with recurrent
or persistent infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices. Europace. 2010;12(9):1275–81.
24. Klug D, Lacroix D, Savoye C, Goullard L,
Grandmougin D, Hennequin JL, et al. Systemic
infection related to endocarditis on pacemaker leads:
clinical presentation and management. Circulation.
1997;95(8):2098–107.
25. Leuck A-M. Left ventricular assist device driveline
infections: recent advances and future goals. J Thorac
Dis. 2015;7(12):2151–7.
26. Flachskampf FA, Wouters PF, Edvardsen T,
Evangelista A, Habib G, Hoffman P, et al.
Recommendations for transoesophageal echocardiography: EACVI update 2014. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc
Imaging. 2014;15(4):353–65.

14 Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection
https://t.me/medicina_free
193
27. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG,
Casalta J-P, 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(44):3075–128.
28. Botelho-Nevers E, Thuny F, Casalta JP, Richet
H, Gouriet F, Collart F, et al. Dramatic reduction
in infective endocarditis-related mortality with a
management-based approach. Arch Intern Med.
2009;169(14):1290–8.
29. Boersma LV, Barr CS, Burke MC, Leon AR, Theuns
DA, Herre JM, etal. Performance of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-debrillator in patients
with a primary prevention indication with and without a reduced ejection fraction versus patients with
a secondary prevention indication. Heart Rhythm.
2017;14(3):367–75.
30. Bannay A, Hoen B, Duval X, Obadia J-F, Selton-Suty
C, Le Moing V, etal. The impact of valve surgery on
short- and long-term mortality in left-sided infective endocarditis: do differences in methodological
approaches explain previous conicting results? Eur
Heart J. 2011;32(16):2003–15.
31. Viganego F, O’Donoghue S, Eldadah Z, Shah MH,
Rastogi M, Mazel JA, etal. Effect of early diagnosis
and treatment with percutaneous lead extraction on
survival in patients with cardiac device infections. Am
J Cardiol. 2012;109(10):1466–71.
32. Love C, Tomas MB, Tronco GG, Palestro CJ. FDG
PET of infection and inammation. Radiographics.
2005;25(5):1357–68.
33. Jamar F, Buscombe J, Chiti A, Christian PE, Delbeke
D, Donohoe KJ, etal. EANM/SNMMI guideline for
18F-FDG use in inammation and infection. J Nucl
Med. 2013;54(4):647–58.
34. Morooka M, Moroi M, Uno K, Ito K, Wu J, Nakagawa
T, etal. Long fasting is effective in inhibiting physiological myocardial 18F-FDG uptake and for evaluating active lesions of cardiac sarcoidosis. EJNMMI
Res. 2014;4:1.
35. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG,
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.
36. Boursier C, Duval X, Bourdon A, Imbert L, Mahida
B, Chevalier E, etal. ECG-gated cardiac FDG PET
acquisitions signicantly improve detectability of
infective endocarditis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging.
2020;13(12):2691–3.
37. Mahmood M, Kendi AT, Farid S, Ajmal S, Johnson
GB, Baddour LM, etal. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in
the diagnosis of cardiovascular implantable electronic
device infections: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol.
2019;26(3):958–70.
38. Juneau D, Golfam M, Hazra S, Zuckier LS, Garas
S, Redpath C, et al. Positron emission tomography
and single-photon emission computed tomography imaging in the diagnosis of cardiac implantable
electronic device infection: a systematic review
and meta- analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging.
2017;10(4):e005772.
39. JAT S, Barlow G, Chambers JB, Gammage M, Guleri
A, Howard P, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis,
prevention and management of implantable cardiac
electronic device infection. Report of a joint working party project on behalf of the British Society for
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British
cardiovascular society (BCS), British heart valve society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography
(BSE). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(2):325–59.
40. Duval X, Le Moing V, Tubiana S, Esposito-Farèse M,
Ilic-Habensus E, Leclercq F, etal. Impact of systematic whole-body 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT
on the management of patients suspected of infective
endocarditis: the prospective multicenter TEPvENDO
study. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;73(3):393–403. https://
doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa666/5850646.
41. Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miró JM, Fowler
VG, Bayer AS, et al. Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the
21st century: the international collaboration on
endocarditis- prospective cohort study. Arch Intern
Med. 2009;169(5):463–73.
42. Hill EE, Herijgers P, Claus P, Vanderschueren S,
Herregods M-C, Peetermans WE. Infective endocarditis: changing epidemiology and predictors of
6-month mortality: a prospective cohort study. Eur
Heart J. 2007;28(2):196–203.
43. Habib G, Erba PA, Iung B, Donal E, Cosyns B,
Laroche C, et al. Clinical presentation, aetiology
and outcome of infective endocarditis. Results of
the ESC-EORP EURO-ENDO (European infective
endocarditis) registry: a prospective cohort study. Eur
Heart J. 2019;40(39):3222–32.
44. Calais J, Touati A, Grall N, Laouénan C, Benali K, Mahida
B, etal. Diagnostic impact of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose
positron emission tomography/computed tomography
and white blood cell SPECT/computed tomography in
patients with suspected cardiac implantable electronic
device chronic infection. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging.
2019;12(7):e007188.
45. Amraoui S, Tlili G, Sohal M, Berte B, Hindié E,
Ritter P, et al. Contribution of PET imaging to the
diagnosis of septic embolism in patients with pacing lead endocarditis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging.
2016;9(3):283–90.
46. Mikail N, Benali K, Ou P, Slama J, Hyal F, Le
Guludec D, etal. Detection of mycotic aneurysms of
lower limbs by whole-body (18)F-FDG-PET. JACC
Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(7):859–62.
47. Mikail N, Benali K, Mahida B, Vigne J, Hyal F,
Rouzet F, etal. 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging to diag-

194
https://t.me/medicina_free
B. Mahida et al.
nose septic emboli and mycotic aneurysms in patients
with endocarditis and cardiac device infections. Curr
Cardiol Rep. 2018;20(3):14.
48. Calais J, Pasi N, Nguyen V, Hyal F. Mycotic
aneurysm in a pulmonary artery detected with
18F-uorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Eur Heart J.
2017;38(46):3474.
49. Boursier C, Duval X, Mahida B, Hoen B, Goehringer
F, Selton-Suty C, etal. Hypermetabolism of the spleen
or bone marrow is an additional albeit indirect sign of
infective endocarditis at FDG-PET. J Nucl Cardiol.
2020;28(6):2533–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12350- 020- 02050- 2.
50. Jerónimo A, Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Ortega-Candil A,
Rodríguez-Rey C, Pérez-Castejón MJ, etal. Accuracy
of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with the suspicion
of cardiac implantable electronic device infections. J
Nucl Cardiol. 2020;29(2):594–608.
51. Diemberger I, Bonglioli R, Martignani C, Graziosi
M, Bif M, Lorenzetti S, etal. Contribution of PET
imaging to mortality risk stratication in candidates
to lead extraction for pacemaker or debrillator infection: a prospective single center study. Eur J Nucl
Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(1):194–205.
52. Signore A, Jamar F, Israel O, Buscombe J, MartinComin J, Lazzeri E.Clinical indications, image acquisition and data interpretation for white blood cells and
anti-granulocyte monoclonal antibody scintigraphy:
an EANM procedural guideline. Eur J Nucl Med Mol
Imaging. 2018;45(10):1816–31.
53. Erba PA, Sollini M, Conti U, Bandera F, Tascini C, De
Tommasi SM, etal. Radiolabeled WBC scintigraphy
in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected
device-related infections. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging.
2013;6(10):1075–86.
54. Holcman K, Małecka B, Rubiś P, Z ąbek A, Szot W,
Boczar K, etal. The role of 99mTc-HMPAO-labelled
white blood cell scintigraphy in the diagnosis of cardiac device-related infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J
Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;21(9):1022–30.

Vascular Graft Infection
https://t.me/medicina_free
EliteArnon-Sheleg andZoharKeidar
15
Introduction
Vascular grafts or prostheses are used for the
treatment of occlusive vascular disease, lifethreatening aortic aneurysms, and aortic dissection. Autologous vascular grafts are made
with the patient’s vessels (commonly the long
saphenous vein). Biological grafts can also be
created from human donor vessels (allografts)
or bovine vessels (xenografts). Synthetic grafts
can be made from polyethylene-terephthalate
(commercially known as Dacron) or polytetrauoroethylene (PTFE, commercially known as
Gore-Tex). Grafts are divided into extracavitary
grafts, located in the groin (80% of cases) and
lower limbs or intracavitary grafts, located in the
abdomen (70% of cases) and thorax [1]. Grafts
may be implanted surgically or as endografts.
E. Arnon-Sheleg (*)
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Galilee Medical
Center, Naharia, Israel
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Galilee
Medical Center, Naharia, Israel
Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar-Ilan University,
Safed, Israel
e-mail: elitea@gmc.gov.il
Z. Keidar
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of
Medicine, Technion—The Israeli institute of
Technology, Haifa, Israel
e-mail: Z_keidar@rambam.health.gov.il
Endografts are frequently used for intracavitary locations. In the last two decades, thoracic
endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been
gradually replacing open intervention with surgical replacement of the aorta with a synthetic
graft. Currently, TEVAR is accepted as the treatment of choice for most cases of thoracic aortic
disease that have anatomic feasibility [2]. Major
complications related to vascular grafts include
occlusion (due to thrombosis or intimal hyperplasia), distal emboli, periprosthetic seroma
(uid collection), pseudoaneurysm, structural
degeneration, erosion into adjacent structures,
and infection [3].
Vascular graft infections (VGI) are considered to be one of the most severe and life-threatening complications of vascular graft insertion,
are a major cause of morbidity and mortality,
and are associated with a high economic cost.
The treatment of an infected graft is based on its
surgical removal, revascularization, and adjunctive antimicrobial therapy. The removal of an
infected graft is associated with a mortality rate
of 18–30%, while leaving the infected graft “in
situ” can lead to a mortality rate approaching
100% despite prolonged antimicrobial treatment
[4, 5]. Early diagnosis can lead to early treatment and improve patient outcome, but the diagnosis of VGI is highly complex, as the clinical
manifestations are nonspecic, and there is no
“gold standard” diagnostic test.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
M. Pelletier-Galarneau, P. Martineau (eds.), FDG-PET/CT and PET/MR in Cardiovascular
Diseases, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09807-9_15
195

196
https://t.me/medicina_free
E. Arnon-Sheleg and Z. Keidar
Frequency, Pathogenesis,
andClinical Presentation
The incidence of VGI ranges between 0.5% and
6% and differs according to the graft’s location.
Intracavitary grafts are less likely to be infected,
with infection occurring in up to 1% of abdominal aortic grafts and in 1.5–2% of aorto-femoral
grafts. The incidence of infection in extracavitary
grafts is higher and reaches 6% for grafts located
in the groin [6].
The most common cause of graft infection is
intraoperative bacterial contamination, followed
by direct spread of infection from a contiguous site
such as a surgical wound infection or erosion of a
vascular graft into adjacent bowel wall. Bacteremia
is an infrequent cause for VGI, with the highest
risk for hematogenous infection during the early
postoperative period (<2months) [4]. The pathogenesis of graft infection differs according to the
graft’s location. Infection of extracavitary grafts
usually occurs due to surgical wound infection or
intraoperative contamination, while intracavitary
graft infections occur due to mechanical erosion,
bacteremia, or contiguous infection from an adjacent site such as spondylodiscitis [7].
The common microorganisms involved in VGI
have changed over the years. Early published
studies found Staphylococcus aureus as the most
common causative pathogen. Later studies show a
more diverse microbiological spectrum of infection, with coagulase-negative staphylococci found
to be the most common causative microorganism.
In addition, multidrug- resistant strains, polymicrobial and fungal infections are becoming more
frequent. These changes can be explained by the
use of prophylactic anti- staphylococcal antibiotics, improvement in surgical techniques, the
growing tendency to perform surgery on patients
with multiple underlying comorbidities and the
evolution of hospital ora [1, 4].
The graft material can potentially inuence its
susceptibility to infection. Autologous grafts are
generally less susceptible to infection due to their
microcirculation. Dacron grafts were found in invitro studies to be more likely to harbor bacteria
that can adhere to its surface and are therefore
coated with collagen and antibiotics to prevent
infections [1, 8]. In-vivo studies have not found
actual differences in prevalence of VGI among
the different graft materials [9].
The clinical manifestations of VGI are highly
variable and change according to the graft location, the causative microorganism, and the duration of time since surgery.
Early VGI occur within the rst 4months after
surgery, involve virulent organisms introduced at
the time of surgery (such as S. aureus), and are
usually easier to diagnose since the signs and
symptoms of infection and inammation are
more apparent. The patient may present with systemic signs of infection as well as local signs of
infection, including erythema and tenderness of
the skin overlying the graft, sinus tract drainage,
abscess, and limb ischemia. Late VGI occur after
4months, are usually indolent, and can present
with no evidence of systemic sepsis [1]. Intracavitary VGI may have no obvious physical ndings. Intra-abdominal VGI may present with
abdominal pain and signs of sepsis. Aortic grafts
can erode into the third or fourth portion of
the duodenum, resulting in intermittent, polymicrobial bacteremia of fecal ora or occasionally
gastrointestinal tract bleeding (Fig. 15.1). Intrathoracic VGI that involves the aortic root can
present with signs and symptoms similar to those
of infective endocarditis, including fever, chills,
heart failure, and disruption of the anastomotic
suture line of the aortic root, which can result in
sudden massive hemorrhage. Septic emboli can
occur in the central nervous system or peripherally [4]. While all vascular graft infections are
associated with high morbidity and mortality,
those involving the thoracic aorta are the most
catastrophic, with reported mortality rates ranging from 25% to 75% [10] (Fig.15.2).

15 Vascular Graft Infection
https://t.me/medicina_free
197
Fig. 15.1 Graft infection with suspected erosion of
bowel wall. A 71-year-old man with an aorto-bi-femoral
graft implanted 20 years ago sent for investigation of a
new aneurism found at the proximal graft anastomosis.
Transaxial CT (left), PET (middle), and fused PET/CT
Fig. 15.2 Infected graft in the ascending aorta A 70-yearold man, 5 years after aortic valve and ascending aorta
replacement presented with fever and S. aureus bacteremia. Transaxial CT (left), PET (middle), and fused PET/
Diagnosis ofVGI
The gold standard for the diagnosis of VGI is a
positive bacterial culture obtained from the
infected graft. Appropriate specimens for bacterial cultures include surgically explanted prosthetic materials, intra-operatively obtained tissue
from the infected area, or at least three samples
from a perigraft uid collection. Fluid collections
can be aspirated percutaneously directed by
ultrasound or CT [9]. In 2016, the Management
of Aortic Graft Infection (MAGIC) group of
experts introduced criteria for the diagnosis of
aortic graft infection, which included minor and
major criteria divided into three categories: clinical/surgical, radiology, and laboratory. According
to the MAGIC criteria, VGI is suspected in a
patient with any isolated major criterion or minor
criteria from two of the three categories and is
diagnosed in the presence of a single major crite-
slice (right) show increased FDG uptake in the anterior
part of a vascular graft in the abdominal aorta and posterior part of the distal duodenum (arrows), suspicious for
graft infection with an erosion to adjacent bowel
CT slice (right) show increased FDG uptake in the circumference of a vascular graft in the ascending aorta, consistent with graft infection
rion along with any other criterion (major or
minor) from another category (Table15.1) [5].
Imaging is essential in diagnosing VGI and its
accompanying complications, including discontinuation of its structural integrity, perigraft gas
or uid collections, anastomotic leak, pseudoaneurysms, and graft-enteric erosion or stula.
Imaging also contributes to guiding perigraft
uid aspiration and to optimal surgical treatment
planning [7]. The MAGIC classication includes
major and minor radiological criteria. Major criteria for the diagnosis of VGI are considered to
be perigraft uid more than 3months after insertion, perigraft gas more than 7weeks after insertion, and increase in perigraft gas volume in serial
imaging tests. Minor radiological criteria include
suspicious perigraft gas/uid, aneurysm expansion, pseudoaneurysm formation and signs of
infection spreading to adjacent structures such as
focal bowel wall thickening and discitis/osteo-

198
https://t.me/medicina_free
Table 15.1 The magic criteria for the diagnosis of VGI [5]
Clinical/surgical Radiology Laboratory
Major
criteria
Minor
criteria
– Pus around graft
– Open wound with exposed
graft or communicating
sinus
– Fistula formation
(aorto-enteric or
aorto-bronchial)
– Graft insertion in an
infected site, mycotic
aneurysm or
pseudoaneurysm
– Localized clinical features
of VGI (erythema, warmth,
purulent discharge)
– Fever ≥38°C with VGI as
the most likely cause
– Perigraft uid on CT >3months after
insertion
– Perigraft gas >7weeks after insertion
– Increase in perigraft gas volume on
serial imaging
– Suspicious perigraft gas/uid/soft tissue;
aneurysm expansion; pseudoaneurysm
formation; focal bowel thickening;
discitis/osteomyelitis
– Suspicious metabolic activity on FDG
PET/CT; uptake in radiolabeled WBC
scan
E. Arnon-Sheleg and Z. Keidar
– Organisms recovered
from an explanted graft
– Organisms recovered
from an intra-operative
specimen
– Organisms recovered
from a percutaneous
aspirate of perigraft
uid
– Positive blood culture
with no other apparent
source
– Abnormally elevated
inammatory markers
myelitis [5]. Imaging methods include radiological and nuclear medicine modalities.
Ultrasonography (US)
US is a noninvasive method with several advantages including repeatability, availability, costeffectiveness, and a high safety-prole, but is
also operator-dependent and can be hampered by
the patient’s body habitus. US is considered more
useful in extra-cavitary graft assessment and can
help in the evaluation of perigraft uid collections, distinguish a uid collection from a hematoma or pseudoaneurysm, and can be used for
US-guided aspiration of a collection [7, 9].
Computed Tomography Angiography
(C TA)
CTA is considered as the rst-choice imaging
modality and was the reference imaging standard
for diagnosis of VGI for many years, particularly
for intra-cavitary grafts. CTA can demonstrate
perigraft uid, gas or inammatory tissue, pseudoaneurysm, signs of inammation or infection
in adjacent structures and stula formation.
Although CTA’s diagnostic performance is better
than that of US, its sensitivity and specicity are
moderate [9]. Reinders-Folmer’s meta-analyses
published in 2018 showed an overall pooled sensitivity of 67% and specicity of 63% for detecting VGI.In addition, the authors demonstrated
that isolated CTA usually does not provide
enough information for establishing the diagnosis of VGI [11]. CTA has higher false-negative
rates and a sensitivity of only 55.5% in low-grade
or early VGI, as the ndings are difcult to differentiate from postoperative changes. It is more
accurate, with a sensitivity and specicity of
about 85–94%, in late VGI or infections accompanied by complications such as abscesses in
adjacent structures or stula. Radiological follow- up with serial CTA can increase diagnostic
accuracy by showing persistent or worsening
ndings. Like US, CT can be used for guided
aspiration of perigraft uid [7].
Magnetic Resonance Angiography
(MRA)
MRA has several advantages over CTA including
the absence of radiation exposure, the use of noniodinated contrast material, and the possible
application of advanced imaging techniques such
as functional or dynamic imaging. However, this
modality has a longer acquisition time, lower
availability and tolerability, and higher costs.

15 Vascular Graft Infection
https://t.me/medicina_free
199
Metallic stents can cause ferromagnetic artifacts
and may in some cases be MR-incompatible.
MRA can demonstrate small perigraft uid collections with a greater resolution than CT but,
like CT, cannot distinguish a postoperational collection from an infected collection. MRA is more
accurate than CT in differentiating perigraft uid
from inammation or brosis [7].
Radiolabeled White Blood Cell (WBC)
Scintigraphy
Labeled WBC scintigraphy is a gamma-camerabased nuclear medicine study that is considered
the imaging modality of choice for the diagnosis
of several infective diseases [12]. Leukocytes,
specically granulocytes, can be labeled with
111
monly used in recent years due to preferable
physical characteristics and less radiation exposure to the patient. The labeled granulocytes
migrate to the infection site and accumulate
there over time [7]. The European Society of
Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines published
in 2018 recommend several (at least dual) time
point image acquisitions of the investigated
regions, with times corrected for isotope decay.
Early post injection images (30min to 1h) and
delayed images (2–4h) may be sufcient for the
diagnosis of VGI, but the addition of late images
(20–24h) is strongly recommended in equivocal
cases, low grade or chronic infections, and in
follow-up studies. The use of single-photon
emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT)
increases the diagnostic accuracy and helps in
evaluating the infection’s extent and location
[11, 12]. Interpretation is derived by comparing
the uptake intensity in the suspected site of
infection between the early and late images.
Infection is characterized by increased intensity
of uptake over time, while in a sterile inammation site the labeled WBC uptake will decrease
or be stable over time. A study by Puges etal.
published in 2019 found WBC scintigraphy as
the most accurate method of diagnosing VGI,
with sensitivity and specicity of 89.5% and
90.9%, respectively, and a negative predictive
In or
99m
Tc. The latter has been more com-
value of 97.2% [13]. A meta-analysis published
in 2018 comprising 14 studies supported this
conclusion with WBC scintigraphy having the
highest diagnostic performance in the diagnoses
of VGI [11]. Despite the accuracy of this method,
the recently published European Society for
Vascular Surgery 2020 Clinical Practice
Guidelines on the Management of Vascular Graft
and Endograft Infections does not recommend
labeled WBC scintigraphy as the rst-choice
nuclear medicine imaging method due to several
limitations [9]. The WBC labeling procedure is a
time- consuming process, requires highly trained
personal, may expose the staff to infected blood
products, and has prolonged acquisition times.
The method’s accuracy is reduced in intracavitary grafts as the tracer is eliminated via the
intestinal tract and physiologically taken up in
the bone marrow, leading to a difcult interpretation of the aorta [9].
FDG PET/CT inVGI
FDG PET/CT has emerged in the last decades as
a useful imaging method for infectious and
inammatory diseases. 18F-FDG, a glucose analog, accumulates in activated inammatory cells,
especially neutrophils and monocytes/macrophages, and in microorganisms such as bacteria
or fungi [14]. PET with co-registered CT allows
a precise localization of FDG uptake with higher
quality images than gamma camera-produced
images, and the total procedure time is considerably shorter than labeled WBC scintigraphy
(2–3h vs. 20–24h). FDG PET/CT can contribute
to the early diagnosis of VGI, before clinical, biological, or radiological criteria are evident. In a
study by Puges et al., three patients who were
negative for VGI according to clinical criteria
were correctly diagnosed with infection using
FDG PET/CT [13]. Like labeled WBC scintigraphy, FDG PET/CT has the ability to demonstrate
additional foci of infection other than the infected
graft, and aid in the assessment of the extent of
disease [13]. Several studies that aimed to investigate the role of FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis
of VGI have been published since 2005, with evi-
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
