The Role of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Left-sided Endocarditis: Native vs Prosthetic Valves Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) has emerged as a useful diagnostic tool for suspected infective endocarditis (IE) in patients with prosthetic valves or implantable devices. However, there is limited evidence regarding use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the diagnosis of native valve endocarditis (NVE). METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, 303 episodes of left-sided suspected IE (188 prosthetic valves/ascending aortic prosthesis and 115 native valves) were studied. 18F-FDG-PET/CT accuracy was determined in the subgroups of patients with NVE and prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE)/ascending aortic prosthesis infection (AAPI). Associations between inflammatory infiltrate patterns and 18F-FDG-PET/CT uptake were investigated in an exploratory ad hoc histological analysis. RESULTS: Among 188 patients with PVE/AAPI, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 18F-FDG-PET/CT focal uptake were 93%, 90%, 89%, and 94%, respectively, while among 115 patients with NVE, the corresponding values were 22%, 100%, 100%, and 66%. The inclusion of abnormal 18F-FDG cardiac uptake as a major criterion at admission enabled a recategorization of 76% (47/62) of PVE/AAPI cases initially classified as "possible" to "definite" IE. In the histopathological analysis, a predominance of polymorphonuclear cell inflammatory infiltrate and a reduced extent of fibrosis were observed in the PVE group only. CONCLUSIONS: Use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT at the initial presentation of patients with suspected PVE increases the diagnostic capability of the modified Duke criteria. In patients who present with suspected NVE, the use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT is less accurate and could only be considered a complementary diagnostic tool for a specific population of patients with NVE.

Effect of a Strategy of Comprehensive Vasodilation vs Usual Care on Mortality and Heart Failure Rehospitalization Among Patients With Acute Heart Failure: The GALACTIC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Short-term infusions of single vasodilators, usually given in a fixed dose, have not improved outcomes in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Objective: To evaluate the effect of a strategy that emphasized early intensive and sustained vasodilation using individualized up-titrated doses of established vasodilators in patients with AHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label blinded-end-point trial enrolling 788 patients hospitalized for AHF with dyspnea, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, systolic blood pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, and plan for treatment in a general ward in 10 tertiary and secondary hospitals in Switzerland, Bulgaria, Germany, Brazil, and Spain. Enrollment began in December 2007 and follow-up was completed in February 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a strategy of early intensive and sustained vasodilation throughout the hospitalization (n = 386) or usual care (n = 402). Early intensive and sustained vasodilation was a comprehensive pragmatic approach of maximal and sustained vasodilation combining individualized doses of sublingual and transdermal nitrates, low-dose oral hydralazine for 48 hours, and rapid up-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or sacubitril-valsartan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for AHF at 180 days. Results: Among 788 patients randomized, 781 (99.1%; median age, 78 years; 36.9% women) completed the trial and were eligible for primary end point analysis. Follow-up at 180 days was completed for 779 patients (99.7%). The primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for AHF at 180 days, occurred in 117 patients (30.6%) in the intervention group (including 55 deaths [14.4%]) and in 111 patients (27.8%) in the usual care group (including 61 deaths [15.3%]) (absolute difference for the primary end point, 2.8% [95% CI, -3.7% to 9.3%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.83-1.39]; P = .59). The most common clinically significant adverse events with early intensive and sustained vasodilation vs usual care were hypokalemia (23% vs 25%), worsening renal function (21% vs 20%), headache (26% vs 10%), dizziness (15% vs 10%), and hypotension (8% vs 2%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with AHF, a strategy of early intensive and sustained vasodilation, compared with usual care, did not significantly improve a composite outcome of all-cause mortality and AHF rehospitalization at 180 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00512759.