Key result
FDG PET/CT use for CIED infections remains rare among 69% of respondents due to access barriers.
Why the study?
Practice patterns of [18F] FDG PET/CT use in cardiac implantable electronic device infections remain undefined.
What are the practice patterns and barriers to using [18F] FDG PET/CT for cardiac implantable electronic device infections?
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.
FDG-PET/CT should not be assumed available for CIED infection evaluation; leaves open implementation research on overcoming access and insurance barriers.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chesdachai et al. (2026) studied this question. 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.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: