Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-positive infective endocarditis (IE) frequently mimics primary ANCA-associated vasculitis, particularly in subacute presentations with renal involvement, and may lead to diagnostic delay or inappropriate immunosuppression. From a laboratory perspective, we reviewed published individual case reports of ANCA-positive IE with explicit microbiological identification and reported outcomes. Fifty-two cases were analyzed using a structured dataset focusing on pathogen distribution, blood-culture status, ANCA assay patterns, renal manifestations, and immune-complex–associated serologies. Bartonella species were the most common pathogens (16/52, 30.8 %) and were uniformly associated with culture-negative IE (16/16, 100 %), contributing substantially to the overall frequency of culture-negative cases (21/52, 40.4 %). PR3-ANCA–predominant results accounted for 78.8 % of cases, whereas MPO-ANCA predominance was rare (1.9 %). Renal involvement was frequent: acute kidney injury occurred in 73.1 % of patients, and rapidly progressive or crescentic glomerulonephritis in 55.7 %. Immune-complex–related findings were common, including hypocomplementemia (59.6 %), rheumatoid factor positivity (44.2 %), and cryoglobulinemia (26.9 %); renal pathology was heterogeneous, with both immune-complex and pauci-immune patterns reported. These case-level data highlight a distinct laboratory signature of ANCA-positive IE characterized by Bartonella -driven culture-negative infection, PR3-ANCA predominance, and severe renal involvement – features that promote diagnostic anchoring toward vasculitis. Integrated laboratory diagnostics, including early laboratory–clinician communication, context-aware interpretation of ANCA results, optimized blood-culture strategies, and targeted testing for fastidious organisms (notably Bartonella ), in conjunction with echocardiographic evaluation, are essential to improve diagnostic accuracy and avoid inappropriate immunosuppression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kudo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: