Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 303–308 | Cite as

Guidelines in review: Comparison of ESC and AHA guidance for the diagnosis and management of infective endocarditis in adults

  • David J. Murphy
  • Munaib Din
  • Fadi G. Hage
  • Eliana ReyesEmail author
Open Access
Review Article

Abstract

Over recent years, new evidence has led a rethinking of the available guidance on the diagnosis and management of infective endocarditis (IE). This review compares the most recently available guidance provided by the American Heart Association (AHA) IE Writing Committee, and the Task Force for the management of IE of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). This represents the sixth of a new series of comparative guidelines review published in the Journal.

Keywords

Infection image-guided application multimodality 

Abbreviations

CTCA

Computed tomographic coronary angiography

CDRIE

Cardiac device-related infective endocarditis

DSA

Digital subtraction angiography

18F-FDG

18-fluorodeoxyglucose

IE

Infective endocarditis

LOE

Level of evidence

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

MRA

Magnetic resonance angiography

NSER

No specific equivalent recommendation

PET/CT

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography

TEE

Transesophageal echocardiography

TTE

Transthoracic echocardiography

Over recent years, new evidence has led to a rethink of the available guidance on the diagnosis and management of infective endocarditis (IE). This review compares the most recently available recommendations provided by the American Heart Association (AHA) IE Writing Committee, and the Task Force for the management of IE of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).1,2 Class (I, II or III) and level of evidence (A, B or C) are provided for each recommendation where given by the guidelines (Tables 1, 2, 3; Figures 1, 2). As in previous comparative guidelines reviews published in the Journal,3, 4, 5, 6, 7 this review focuses on the role of imaging in the evaluation and management of patients with suspected IE.
Table 1

Indications for echocardiography in patients with suspected infective endocarditis

*According to the AHA scientific statement, TEE is preferred over TTE, but the latter should be performed if TEE is not immediately available. TTE may be sufficient in small children

AHA statement also suggests TEE as first-line test in patients with a prosthetic valve and suspected IE

In this clinical scenario, the AHA statement recommends repeating the TEE in 3 to 5 days or sooner

§ESC guidelines stipulate that the timing and mode (TTE or TEE) of repeat test depend on initial findings, microorganism type, and initial response to therapy

Table 2

indications for non-invasive imaging in cardiac device-related infective endocarditis (CDREI)

Table 3

Role of CT, MRI, radionuclide imaging and angiography in the assessment of IE patients

*These proposed indications are discussed in the guidelines but neither the ESC guidelines nor the AHA scientific statement give specific or formal recommendation

The AHA statement recommends that, in IE patients with suspected metastatic foci of infection, the choice of diagnostic technique (ultrasonography, CT or MRI) should be individualised for each patient (Class I; LOE, C)

Although there is no specific recommendation, the ESC guidelines state that patients with suspected splenic complications should be evaluated by CT, MRI or ultrasound

§The AHA statement recognises that more studies are needed to determine the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in the diagnosis and management of patients with IE, and highlights evidence on the usefulness of this technique for the detection of peripheral emboli and other extracardiac complications

Figure 1

ESC and AHA recommendations for the initial assessment of patients with clinically suspected infective endocarditis using echocardiography

Figure 2

Role of advanced imaging in the assessment of patients with infective endocarditis. CTA, computed tomographic angiography; 18F-FDG, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose; MRA, magnetic resonance angiography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography; TTE, transthoracic echocardiography

Notes

Disclosure

All authors have nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG Jr, Tleyjeh IM, Rybak MJ, et al. American Heart Association Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease of the Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and Stroke Council. Infective Endocarditis in Adults: Diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: A scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;132:1435-86.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta JP, Del Zotti F, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The task force for the management of infective endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J 2015;36:3075-128.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Velasco A, Reyes E, Hage FG. Guidelines in review: Comparison of the 2014 ACC/AHA guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery and the 2014 ESC/ESA guidelines on noncardiac surgery: Cardiovascular assessment and management. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:165-70.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stirrup J, Velasco A, Hage FG, Reyes E. Comparison of ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines for myocardial revascularization. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:1046-53.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Velasco A, Stirrup J, Reyes E, Hage FG. Guidelines in review: Comparison between AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:1902-3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prejean SP, Din M, Reyes E, Hage FG. Guidelines in review: Comparison of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and the 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. J Nucl Cardiol 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1137-z.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joseph J, Velasco A, Hage FG, Reyes E. Guidelines in review: Comparison of ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Ncl Cardiol 2018;25:509-15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Murphy
    • 1
  • Munaib Din
    • 1
  • Fadi G. Hage
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eliana Reyes
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.King’s College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust PET CentreLondonUK
  2. 2.Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of MedicineThe University of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  3. 3.Section of CardiologyBirmingham Veteran Affairs Medical CenterBirminghamUSA
  4. 4.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentRoyal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations