Vol 23, No 2 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-07-31

open access

Page views 1540
Article views/downloads 1562
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Patterns of vascular graft infection in 18F-FDG PET/CT

Beata E. Chrapko1, Marek Chrapko2, Anna Nocuń1, Tomasz Zubilewicz2, Bogusław Stefaniak1, Jakub Mitura1, Andrzej Wolski3, Piotr Terelecki2
Pubmed: 33007092
Nucl. Med. Rev 2020;23(2):63-70.


BACKGROUND: 18F-FDG PET/CT has become an important tool in diagnosis of prosthetic vascular graft infections (PVGI). The aim of the study was to identify the patterns of vascular graft infection in 18F-FDG PET/CT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was performed in 24 patients with vascular graft infection, in 17 patients implanted in an open surgery mode and in 7 patients by endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Vascular prostheses were evaluated by two visual scales and semi-quantitative analysis with maximum standardized uptake values (SUV max). RESULTS: In the 3-point scale: 23 patients were in grade 1 and one patient was in grade 2. In the 5-point scale: 19 patients were in grade 5 with the highest activity in the focal area, 4 patients were in grade 4 and one patient in grade 3. The visual evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/CT study revealed that peri-graft high metabolic activity was associated with occurrence of morphological abnormalities (n = 21) like gas bubbles and peri-graft fluid retention or without abnormal CT findings (n = 3). The presence of the gas bubbles was linked to higher uptake of 18F-FDG (p < 0.01, SUVmax 11.81 ± 4.35 vs 7.36 ± 2.80, 15 vs 9 pts). In EVAR procedure, the highest metabolic activity was greater than in classical prosthesis (SUVmax 21.5 vs 13). CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG PET/CT is a very useful tool for assessment of vascular graft infections. CT findings like gas bubbles, or peri-graft fluid retention were associated with significantly higher glucose metabolism; however, in some cases without anatomic alterations, increased metabolic activity was the only sign of infection.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Legout L, D'Elia PV, Sarraz-Bournet B, et al. Vascular graft infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012; 25(2): 154–158.
  2. Setacci C, Müller-Hülsbeck S, Jamar FX. Common diagnostic flowcharts in vascular and endovascular surgery. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014; 58(1): 46–54.
  3. Baddour LM, Bettmann MA, Bolger AF, et al. AHA. Nonvalvular cardiovascular device-related infections. Circulation. 2003; 108(16): 2015–2031.
  4. Keidar Z, Nitecki S. FDG-PET in prosthetic graft infections. Semin Nucl Med. 2013; 43(5): 396–402.
  5. Antonios VS, Noel AA, Steckelberg JM, et al. Prosthetic vascular graft infection: a risk factor analysis using a case-control study. J Infect. 2006; 53(1): 49–55.
  6. Hasse B, Husmann L, Zinkernagel A, et al. Vascular graft infections. Swiss Med Wkly. 2013; 143: w13754.
  7. Swain TW, Calligaro KD, Dougherty MD. Management of infected aortic prosthetic grafts. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2004; 38(1): 75–82.
  8. Lyons OTA, Baguneid M, Barwick TD, et al. Diagnosis of Aortic Graft Infection: A Case Definition by the Management of Aortic Graft Infection Collaboration (MAGIC). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016; 52(6): 758–763.
  9. Bowles H, Ambrosioni J, Mestres G, et al. Diagnostic yield of 18F-FDG PET/CT in suspected diagnosis of vascular graft infection: A prospective cohort study. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018; 27(1): 294–302.
  10. Sah BR, Husmann L, Mayer D, et al. VASGRA Cohort. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in vascular graft infections. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015; 49(4): 455–464.
  11. Lyons OTA, Patel AS, Saha P, et al. A 14-year experience with aortic endograft infection: management and results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013; 46(3): 306–313.
  12. Li HL, Chan YC, Cheng SW. Current Evidence on Management of Aortic Stent-graft Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018; 51: 306–313.
  13. FitzGerald SF, Kelly C, Humphreys H. Diagnosis and treatment of prosthetic aortic graft infections: confusion and inconsistency in the absence of evidence or consensus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005; 56(6): 996–999.
  14. McWilliams ET, Yavari A, Raman V. Aortic root abscess: multimodality imaging with computed tomography and gallium-67 citrate single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography hybrid imaging. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011; 5(2): 122–124.
  15. Legout L, D'Elia PV, Sarraz-Bournet B, et al. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic vascular graft infections. Med Mal Infect. 2012; 42(3): 102–109.
  16. O'Hara PJ, Borkowski GP, Hertzer NR, et al. Natural history of periprosthetic air on computerized axial tomographic examination of the abdomen following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 1984; 1(3): 429–433.
  17. Qvarfordt PG, Reilly LM, Mark AS, et al. Computerized tomographic assessment of graft incorporation after aortic reconstruction. Am J Surg. 1985; 150(2): 227–231.
  18. Jamar F, Buscombe J, Chiti A, et al. EANM/SNMMI guideline for 18F-FDG use in inflammation and infection. J Nucl Med. 2013; 54(4): 647–658.
  19. Liberatore M, Iurilli AP, Ponzo F, et al. Clinical usefulness of technetium-99m-HMPAO-labeled leukocyte scan in prosthetic vascular graft infection. J Nucl Med. 1998; 39(5): 875–879.
  20. Husmann L, Huellner MW, Ledergerber B, et al. and the Vasgra Cohort. Comparing diagnostic accuracy of F-FDG-PET/CT, contrast enhanced CT and combined imaging in patients with suspected vascular graft infections. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 46(6): 1359–1368.
  21. Wassélius J, Malmstedt J, Kalin Bo, et al. High 18F-FDG Uptake in synthetic aortic vascular grafts on PET/CT in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(10): 1601–1605.
  22. Kara PÖ, Gedik GK, Kara T, et al. FDG Uptake Pattern on PET/CT Imaging in Non-Infectious Graft of a Patient with Operated Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2012; 21(3): 110–113.
  23. Granados U, Fuster D, Pericas JM, et al. Hospital Clinic Endocarditis Study Group. Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Infective Endocarditis and Implantable Cardiac Electronic Device Infection: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57(11): 1726–1732.
  24. Berger P, Vaartjes I, Scholtens A, et al. Differential FDG-PET Uptake Patterns in Uninfected and Infected Central Prosthetic Vascular Grafts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015; 50(3): 376–383.
  25. Keidar Z, Engel A, Hoffman A, et al. Prosthetic vascular graft infection: the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48(8): 1230–1236.
  26. Kim SJ, Lee SW, Jeong S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography for detection of infected prosthetic vascular grafts. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2019; 70(1): 307–313.