Normal imaging findings after ascending aorta prosthesis implantation on 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography with computed tomography

• Published in: Journal of nuclear cardiology 2022-12, Vol.29 (6), p.2938
• Main Authors: Wahadat, Ali R, Tanis, Wilco, Mulders, Ties A, Graven, Laura H, Bekker, Margreet W A, Bekkers, Jos A, Roos-Hesselink, Jolien W, Budde, Ricardo P J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Aorta, Thoracic; Female; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - methods; Positron-Emission Tomography; Radiopharmaceuticals
• ISSN: 1532-6551

To diagnose abnormal F-Fluorodeoxyglucose ( 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). Patients with uncomplicated ARAP implantation were prospectively included and underwent 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 ) and target-to-background ratio (SUV ). 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 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 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. 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.