Abstract
ObjectiveVascular graft and endograft infection (VGEI) has high morbidity and mortality rates. Diagnosis is complicated because symptoms vary and can be nonspecific. A meta-analysis identified 18F-fluoro-d-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) as the most valuable tool for diagnosis of VGEI and favorable to computed tomography as the current standard. However, the availability and varied use of several interpretation methods, without consensus on which interpretation method is best, complicate clinical use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of different interpretation methods of 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosis of VGEI. MethodsA systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources included PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. A meta-analysis was conducted on the different interpretation methods for 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosis of VGEI, including visual FDG uptake intensity, visual FDG uptake pattern, and quantitative maximum standardized uptake (SUVmax). ResultsOf 613 articles, 13 were included (10 prospective and 3 retrospective articles). The FDG uptake pattern method (I2 = 26.2%) showed negligible heterogeneity, whereas the FDG uptake intensity (I2 = 42.2%) and SUVmax (I2 = 42.1%) methods showed moderate heterogeneity.The pooled sensitivity for FDG uptake intensity was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.96); for uptake pattern, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97); and for SUVmax, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.76-0.99). The pooled specificity for FDG uptake intensity was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.38-0.78); for FDG uptake pattern, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.88); and for SUVmax, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.87).The uptake pattern interpretation method demonstrated the best positive and negative post-test probability, 82% and 10%, respectively. ConclusionsThis meta-analysis identified the FDG uptake pattern as the most accurate assessment method of 18F-FDG PET/CT for diagnosis of VGEI. The optimal SUVmax cutoff, depending on the vendor, demonstrated strong sensitivity and moderate specificity.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.