An observational study in Endocarditis and Prosthetic Material Related Infection, sponsored by University Medical Center Groningen. Status unknown at 1 site in Netherlands. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-03-25.
Sponsored by University Medical Center Groningen · Observational
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a frequent and serious complication of implanted intracardiac prosthetic material, with a high morbidity and mortality. Therefore, this study aims to improve outcome of IE, with a focus on patients with intracardiac prosthetic material. In this study the investigators deal with research questions about both the diagnosis (microbiological, imaging, and expert opinion) and treatment of IE (with antimicrobial agents and surgical), in order to improve these clinical components and ultimately aim to improve outcome.
Rationale
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a frequent and serious complication of implanted intracardiac prosthetic material, with a high morbidity and mortality. The number of procedures where prosthetic material is implanted in the heart increases, as do the age and comorbidity of treated subjects. In current clinical practice diagnosis of infected intracardiac prosthetic material is often difficult because of the lack of sensitivity of the available diagnostic armamentarium for IE.
As a general rule, first line treatment of intracardiac prosthetic material related endocarditis consists of surgical prosthesis removal, combined with appropriate antimicrobial therapy. The exception encompasses uncomplicated prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). PVE actually has a fair chance of successful medical treatment alone (>50%), depending on the causative micro-organism. Although there is evidence and consensus with regard to the first line treatment, surgical removal is not always possible because of its associated high risk, technical limitations, or unwillingness of patients to undergo an invasive surgical procedure. Second and third line treatments do not include surgery, and consist of antimicrobial therapy with biofilm-penetrating agents during a predetermined timespan (second line) or as life-long suppressive antimicrobial therapy (third line). These treatments are the alternative in situations wherein first line treatment is not feasible or is unwanted. Although not extensively investigated, these treatments are considered suboptimal.
Therefore further research is necessary. More research is needed to diagnose IE more accurate and prompt, as current diagnostic criteria (the modified Duke criteria) for IE are insufficient and as it is unclear how to best allocate non-invasive imaging techniques, especially for intracardiac prosthetic material. More research is also needed to verify the indications for and optimize the use of second and third line treatments in patients with intracardiac prosthetic material.
Objectives
Primary
To define the diagnostic value of the combination of 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) and electrocardiogram-gated multidetector computed tomography angiography (ECG-gated MD-CTA) in patients suspected of IE, in particular those with intracardiac prosthetic material, when added to the standard diagnostic work-up for IE.
Secondary
To investigate the potential of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to improve the antimicrobial therapy in patients suspected of IE, in particular those with intracardiac prosthetic material:
Study design
Prospective multicentre observation study, with the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) in Groningen as the leading centre.
Study population
Patients (≥18 years) in which IE is suspected according to the britisch society for antimicrobial chemotherapy (BSAC) criteria 2012.
Main study parameters/endpoints
Number of clinically identified (prosthetic material related) endocarditis episodes, according to (multiple) constellation(s) of diagnostic criteria versus number of "true" (prosthetic material related) endocarditis episodes, according to our gold standard "expert opinion after 12 months (+/- 2 weeks) follow-up" (based on clinical reasoning, the modified Duke criteria, and findings during surgery and from pathology).
170 studies on the registry are indexed under Endocarditis; 51 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 300 is above the median of 263 across 81 observational studies indexed under Endocarditis.
Browse Endocarditis studies →University Medical Center Groningen is the lead sponsor of 609 studies on the registry; 174 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients (≥18 years) in which infective endocarditis is suspected according to the BSAC-criteria 2012
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients with suspicion of native valve endocarditis, infective endocarditis and no intracardiac prosthetic material in situ
Other: diagnostic workup
Patients with a suspicion of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), infective endocarditis and one or more prosthetic valves in situ
Other: diagnostic workup
Patients with a suspicion of infective endocarditis and a pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in situ
Other: diagnostic workup
Our primary objective is to test whether the proportion of patients diagnosed correctly with the use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT, MD-CTA, and 18F-FDG-PET/MD-CTA added to the gold standard in current clinical practice, the modified Duke criteria by Li et al. 2000, is significantly higher as compared with the modified Duke criteria on itself. The gold standard is clinical judgement after clinical follow-up by a multidisciplinary team with medical specialists.
IE clinical diagnosis
Number of clinically identified (prosthetic material related) endocarditis episodes, according to (multiple) constellation(s) of diagnostic criteria (the current gold standard of the modified Duke criteria, and newly set-up and to be investigated constellations of diagnostic elements)
Time frame: 2 months
IE final diagnosis
Number of "true" prosthetic material related endocarditis episodes, according to expert opinion after follow-up (important components being findings during surgery and from pathology)
Time frame: 1 year
Relapse/recurrence
Number of relapses / recurrences
Time frame: 1 year
1 year mortality
Mortality after 1-year follow-up
Time frame: 1 year
30 day mortality
Mortality after 30-days follow-up
Time frame: 30 days
Duration of antimicrobial therapy
Duration of antimicrobial therapy (including appropriateness of drug, dosing and dosing regimen)
Time frame: 30 days
Cardiac surgery
Cardiac surgery performed
Time frame: 1 year
Complications
Number of complications: congestive heart failure (CHF) or other hemodynamic consequences, septic emboli, metastatic infection
Time frame: 1 year
Adverse events
Number of adverse and serious adverse events
Time frame: 1 year
Plan to share: No — Currently single center study
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is status unknown, as verified in Mar 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University Medical Center Groningen