4.5 Article

Diagnostic value of positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography for evaluating patients with septic shock of unknown origin

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.10.004

关键词

Severe sepsis; Septic shock; FDG-PET/CT; Outcome; Infection; Management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (CT) is a promising new tool for the identification of infectious foci. The aim of our work was to evaluate the diagnostic value of FDG-PET/CT in critically ill patients with septic shock of unknown origin. Methods: We performed a single-center, 6-year retrospective evaluation of the value of FDG-PET/CT in critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock of unknown origin. Results: Eighteen patients underwent FDG-PET/CT. Microbiological tests (blood culture, urine, and respiratory secretions), chest x-rays, CT scans, and transesophageal echocardiography were performed on all patients before FDG-PET/CT scanning. Pathologic FDG accumulation could be demonstrated in 14 of 18 FDG-PET/CT scans. On a per-patient basis, 11 were true positive, 3 were false positive, 4 were true negative, and there were no false negatives. In 6 cases, the results of the PET/CT scan had direct therapeutic consequences (surgery, 2; pacemaker removal, 2; initiation of antibiotic therapy, 1; and prolonged antibiotic therapy, 1); 12 (66%) of the 18 patients survived to hospital discharge. Conclusions: The FDG-PET/CT is a valuable tool for the localization of infectious foci in critically ill patients with severe sepsis/septic shock in whom conventional diagnostic methods fail to detect these foci. Prospective studies with more patients are warranted to further evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of this diagnostic tool in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据