69% of respondents in the Emerging Infections Network reported never or rarely using [18F] FDG PET/CT for cardiac implantable electronic device infections, mainly due to access and insurance barriers.
What are the practice patterns and barriers to using [18F] FDG PET/CT for cardiac implantable electronic device infections?
The majority of surveyed providers rarely or never use [18F] FDG PET/CT for cardiac implantable electronic device infections, primarily due to access and insurance barriers.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Abstract The practice patterns of fluorine 18–labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F FDG PET/CT) use in cardiac implantable electronic device infection remain undefined. Among 258 Emerging Infections Network respondents, 69% reported never or rarely using 18F FDG PET/CT. Limited access and insurance barriers were the most common obstacles.
Chesdachai et al. (Tue,) reported a other. 69% of respondents in the Emerging Infections Network reported never or rarely using [18F] FDG PET/CT for cardiac implantable electronic device infections, mainly due to access and insurance barriers.