- 作者：Maria Lucia Narducci ; MD ; PhD? ; lianarducci@yahoo.it ; Gemma Pelargonio ; MD ; PhD? ; Eleonora Russo ; MD? ; Leonardo Marinaccio ; MD? ; Antonio Di Monaco ; MD? ; Francesco Perna ; MD ; PhD? ; Gianluigi Bencardino ; MD ; PhD? ; Michela Casella ; MD ; PhD&dagger ; ; Luigi Di Biase ; MD ; PhD&Dagger ; ; § ; ; ¡Î ; Pasquale Santangeli ; MD&Dagger ; ; ¡Î ; Rosalinda Palmieri ; MD? ; Christian Lauria ; MS? ; Ghaliah Al Mohani ; MD? ; Francesca Di Clemente ; MD? ; Claudio Tondo ; MD ; PhD&dagger ; ; Faustino Pennestri ; MD? ; Carolina Ierardi ; MD? ; Antonio G. Rebuzzi ; MD? ; Filippo Crea ; MD? ; Fulvio Bellocci ; MD? ; Andrea Natale ; MD&Dagger ; ; § ; ; Antonio Dello Russo ; MD ; PhD&dagger ;
- 关键词：infective endocarditis ; intracardiac echocardiography ; transesophageal echocardiography ; transvenous lead extraction
- 刊名：Journal of the American College of Cardiology
- 出版年：2013
- 出版时间：2 April, 2013
- 年：2013
- 卷：61
- 期：13
- 页码：1398-1405
- 全文大小：994 K
Objectives
The goal of this study was to compare transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) for the diagnosis of cardiac device-related endocarditis (CDI).Background
The diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) was established by using the modified Duke criteria based mainly on echocardiography and blood culture results. No previous studies have compared ICE with TEE for the diagnosis of IE.
Methods
We prospectively enrolled 162 patients (age 72 ¡À 11 years; 125 male) who underwent transvenous lead extraction: 152 with CDI and 10 with lead malfunction (control group). Using the modified Duke criteria, we divided the patients with infection into 3 groups: 44 with a ¡°definite¡± diagnosis of IE (group 1), 52 with a ¡°possible¡± diagnosis of IE (group 2), and 56 with a ¡°rejected¡± diagnosis of IE (group 3). TEE and ICE were performed before the procedure.
Results
In group 1, ICE identified intracardiac masses (ICM) in all 44 patients; TEE identified ICM in 32 patients (73 % ). In group 2, 6 patients (11 % ) had ICE and TEE both positive for ICM, 8 patients (15 % ) had a negative TEE but a positive ICE, and 38 patients (73 % ) had ICE and TEE both negative. In group 3, 2 patients (3 % ) had ICM both at ICE and TEE, 1 patient (2 % ) had an ICM at ICE and a negative TEE, and 53 patients (95 % ) had no ICM at ICE and TEE. ICE and TEE were both negative in the control group.
Conclusions
ICE represents a useful technique for the diagnosis of ICM, thus providing improved imaging of right-sided leads and increasing the diagnostic yield compared with TEE.