CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT02759978IDENTICALUpdated Mar 25, 2020

Individualized Diagnosis of Endocarditis and Its Therapy With a Focus on Infected Prosthetic materiAL

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

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Mar 2020), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
300
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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.

Read the detailed description

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 define the predictive value of MD-CTA and 18F-FDG PET with regard to relapse rate and mortality of IE;
  • To identify sources of false positive and false negative results in MD-CTA and 18F-FDG PET (e.g. the effect of the use of antimicrobial therapy on imaging findings);
  • To identify the best MD-CTA and 18F-FDG PET scanning protocol;
  • To define the role of 18F-FDG PET for finding other infectious lesions in the body;
  • To assess and compare current clinical practices in patients with intracardiac prosthetic material related infection when the foreign material cannot be removed; to determine the outcomes of second and third line treatment as compared with first line treatment, and to determine predictors of outcome;
  • 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:

    • for which peak and through blood concentrations should be aimed at in IE for flucloxacillin, rifampicin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, amoxicillin, penicillin; fluconazole, flucytosine, amphotericin-B?
    • for which peak blood concentrations should be aimed at for gentamicin in IE?
    • for which peak and through blood concentrations should be aimed at for vancomycin in intracardiac prosthetic material related IE?
    • for which through blood concentrations should be aimed at in IE for voriconazole?
  • To investigate antimicrobial concentrations in resected cardiac tissue (e.g. heart valve or vegetation which has been removed based on medical indication) in patients with IE who have been treated medically with antimicrobials and who subsequently are operated upon.

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).

02

Conditions studied

  • Endocarditis
  • Prosthetic Material Related Infection

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Imaging
  • Computed Tomography
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Positron Emission Tomography
  • Leukocyte Scintigraphy
  • Microbiological diagnostics
  • Sonication
  • Drug Monitoring
  • Cardiac Surgery
03

In context

Endocarditis

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 →

Lead sponsor

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.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

Patients (≥18 years) in which infective endocarditis is suspected according to the BSAC-criteria 2012

Inclusion criteria

  • patients presenting to participating hospitals
  • age ≥18 years
  • BSAC-criteria 2012: suspicion of infective endocarditis, retained in the differential diagnosis after clinical reasoning, without alternative diagnosis

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • not fulfilling inclusion criteria
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
300 participants (estimated)
Target follow-up
1 Year
Patient registry
Yes

Groups and cohorts

  • Suspicion NVE

    Patients with suspicion of native valve endocarditis, infective endocarditis and no intracardiac prosthetic material in situ

    Other: diagnostic workup

  • Suspicion (PVE)

    Patients with a suspicion of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), infective endocarditis and one or more prosthetic valves in situ

    Other: diagnostic workup

  • Suspicion pacemaker/ICD related endocarditis

    Patients with a suspicion of infective endocarditis and a pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in situ

    Other: diagnostic workup

Interventions

  • Otherdiagnostic 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.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Relapse/recurrence

    Number of relapses / recurrences

    Time frame: 1 year

  4. 1 year mortality

    Mortality after 1-year follow-up

    Time frame: 1 year

  5. 30 day mortality

    Mortality after 30-days follow-up

    Time frame: 30 days

  6. Duration of antimicrobial therapy

    Duration of antimicrobial therapy (including appropriateness of drug, dosing and dosing regimen)

    Time frame: 30 days

  7. Cardiac surgery

    Cardiac surgery performed

    Time frame: 1 year

  8. Complications

    Number of complications: congestive heart failure (CHF) or other hemodynamic consequences, septic emboli, metastatic infection

    Time frame: 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Adverse events

    Number of adverse and serious adverse events

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • University Medical Center Groningen
    Groningen, 9713 GZ, Netherlands
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — Currently single center study

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 25, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02759978
Lead sponsor
University Medical Center Groningen
Responsible party
Bhanu Sinha, MD, PhD (Principal Investigator, University Medical Center Groningen) — Principal investigator
First posted
May 3, 2016
Start date
May 2016
Primary completion
Apr 2023 (estimated)
Completion
May 2023 (estimated)
Last update
Mar 25, 2020

Study contacts

Anna Gomes, MD
Contact
a.gomes@umcg.nl
+31503617533
Bhanu Sinha, MD, PhD
Contact
b.sinha@umcg.nl
+31503613480
Bhanu Sinha, MD, PhD
principal investigator · Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Groningen

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Mar 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Start the discussion