Back
 SS  Vol.5 No.2 , February 2014
The Use of Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis of Prosthetic Arteriovenous Hemodialysis Graft Infection: A Case Study
Abstract: Patients on chronic hemodialysis (HD) required efficient arterio-venous access. Different types of vascular access are commonly used, such as native arteriovenous (AV) fistula, prosthetic AV graft, central venous catheter, or temporary and tunnelled cuffed catheters. Vascular access—related morbidity remains the major issue for patients requiring long-term therapy. Vascular access infection constitutes the most challenging and life-threatening complication of vascular access and causes significant morbidity, loss of access and mortality. Vascular access infection is defined as local signs at the vascular access site or a positive blood culture with no know source other than the vascular access. The critical issue in the management of AV graft infection is the need to remove the infection and to maintain HD access with reduced morbidity. The diagnosis of infected AV graft is not always easy, especially with low-grade infection or atypical presentation. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is an imaging method that uses a radioactively labelled tracer (18 fluorodeoxy glucose) which is taken up by tissue with high metabolic activity, such as neoplastic and inflammatory lesions. FDG-PET has been proposed to visualise localisation of infection in patients with suspected prosthetic graft infection. We report a case of methicilin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) hemodialysis access infection without local inflammatory signs diagnosed on the PET-CT.
Cite this paper: B. Saint-Lebes, C. Dubuis, S. Deglise, F. Saucy and J. Corpataux, "The Use of Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis of Prosthetic Arteriovenous Hemodialysis Graft Infection: A Case Study," Surgical Science, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2014, pp. 70-73. doi: 10.4236/ss.2014.52015.
References

[1]   III. NKF-K/DOQI, “Clinical, Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access: Update 2000,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2001, pp. S137-S181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6386(01) 70007-8

[2]   J. Ethier, et al., “Vascular Access Use and Outcomes: An International Perspective from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, Vol. 23, No. 10, 2008, pp. 3219-3126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfn261

[3]   J. A. Akoh, “Vascular Access Infections: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management,” Current Infectious Disease Reports, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2011, pp. 324-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11908-011-0192-x

[4]   P. Ponce, et al., “A Prospective Study on Incidence of Bacterial Infections in Portuguese Dialysis Units,” Nephron Clinical Practice, Vol. 107, No. 4, 2007, pp. 133138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/ 000110033

[5]   K. B. Stevenson, et al., “Epidemiology of Hemodialysis Vascular Access Infections from Longitudinal Infection Surveillance Data: Predicting the Impact of NKF-DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vascular Access,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2002, pp. 549-555.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/ajkd.2002.31405

[6]   L. A. Colville and A. H. Lee, “Retrospective Analysis of Catheter-Related Infections in a Hemodialysis Unit,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 27, No. 9, 2006, pp. 969-973.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/507821

[7]   P. Bachleda, et al., “Infectious Complications of Arteriovenous ePTFE Grafts for Hemodialysis,” Biomedical Papers, Vol. 154, No. 1, 2010, pp. 13-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5507/bp.2010.005

[8]   W. P. Schutte, et al., “Surgical Treatment of Infected Prosthetic Dialysis Arteriovenous Grafts: Total versus Partial Graft Excision,” The American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 193, No. 3, 2007, pp. 385-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.09.028

[9]   I. Saeed Abdulrahman, et al., “A Prospective Study of Hemodialysis Access-Related Bacterial Infections,” Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2002, pp. 242-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10156-002-0184-8

[10]   J. L. Bruggink, et al., “Accuracy of FDG-PET-CT in the Diagnostic Work-Up of Vascular Prosthetic Graft Infection,” European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2010, pp. 348-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.05.016

[11]   R. Kumar, et al., “Role of Modern Imaging Techniques for Diagnosis of Infection in the Era of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography,” Clinical Microbiology Reviews, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2008, pp. 209-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00025-07

[12]   M. G. van der Vaart, et al., “Application of PET/SPECT Imaging in Vascular Disease,” European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 35, No. 5, 2008, pp. 507-513.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2007.11.016

[13]   P. Fiorani, et al., “Detection of Aortic Graft Infection with leukocytes Labeled with Technetium 99m-Hexametazime,” Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1993, pp. 87-95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0741-5214(93)90012-B

[14]   S. Basu, et al., “Positron Emission Tomography as a Diagnostic Tool in Infection: Present Role and Future Possibilities,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2009, pp. 36-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.08.004

[15]   K. Fukuchi, et al., “Detection of Aortic Graft Infection by Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography: Comparison with Computed Tomographic Findings,” Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2005, pp. 919-925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2005.07.038

[16]   Z. Keidar, et al., “Prosthetic Vascular Graft Infection: The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 8, 2007, pp. 1230-1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.040253

 
 
Top