AC Portal
Document Navigator

Infective Endocarditis

Variant: 1   Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US echocardiography transthoracic resting Usually Appropriate O
Radiography chest Usually Appropriate
CT heart function and morphology with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
US echocardiography transesophageal May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) O
CTA chest with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy heart Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢
Arteriography coronary Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT chest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT heart Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
WBC scan heart Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2   Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US echocardiography transesophageal Usually Appropriate O
US echocardiography transthoracic resting Usually Appropriate O
CT heart function and morphology with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Radiography chest May Be Appropriate
Fluoroscopy heart May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) ☢☢
Arteriography coronary May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT chest with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CTA chest with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT heart May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
WBC scan heart May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢

Panel Members
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Special Imaging Considerations
Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

  • There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

OR

  • There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography Coronary
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
B. CT Chest
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
C. CT Heart Function and Morphology
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
D. CTA Chest
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
E. CTA Coronary Arteries
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
F. FDG-PET/CT Heart
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
G. Fluoroscopy Heart
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
H. WBC Scan Heart
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
I. MRI Heart Function and Morphology
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
J. Radiography Chest
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
K. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Resting
Variant 1: Suspected infective endocarditis. Initial imaging.
L. US Echocardiography Transesophageal
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
A. Arteriography Coronary
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
B. CT Chest
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
C. CT Heart Function and Morphology
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
D. CTA Chest
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
E. CTA Coronary Arteries
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
F. FDG-PET/CT Heart
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
G. Fluoroscopy Heart
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
H. WBC Scan Heart
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
I. MRI Heart Function and Morphology
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
J. Radiography Chest
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
K. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Resting
Variant 2: Known or suspected infective endocarditis. Additional imaging to direct patient management or treatment.
L. US Echocardiography Transesophageal
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References
1. Akinosoglou K, Apostolakis E, Marangos M, Pasvol G. Native valve right sided infective endocarditis. [Review]. EUR. J. INTERN. MED.. 24(6):510-9, 2013 Sep.
2. Cecchi E, Imazio M, Tidu M, et al. Infective endocarditis in drug addicts: role of HIV infection and the diagnostic accuracy of Duke criteria. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2007;8(3):169-175.
3. Lee MR, Chang SA, Choi SH, et al. Clinical features of right-sided infective endocarditis occurring in non-drug users. J Korean Med Sci. 29(6):776-81, 2014 Jun.
4. Erba PA, Pizzi MN, Roque A, et al. Multimodality Imaging in Infective Endocarditis: An Imaging Team Within the Endocarditis Team. Circulation 2019;140:1753-65.
5. Haldar SM, O'Gara PT. Infective endocarditis: diagnosis and management. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2006;3(6):310-317.
6. Kiefer TL, Bashore TM. Infective endocarditis: a comprehensive overview. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2012;13:e105-20.
7. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). European Heart Journal. 36(44):3075-3128, 2015 Nov 21.Eur Heart J. 36(44):3075-3128, 2015 Nov 21.
8. Anguera I, Miro JM, Evangelista A, et al. Periannular complications in infective endocarditis involving native aortic valves. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(9):1254-1260.
9. Anguera I, Miro JM, San Roman JA, et al. Periannular complications in infective endocarditis involving prosthetic aortic valves. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(9):1261-1268.
10. Gomes A, Glaudemans A, Touw DJ, et al. Diagnostic value of imaging in infective endocarditis: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 2017;17:e1-e14.
11. American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
12. Kung VW, Jarral OA, Shipolini AR, McCormack DJ. Is it safe to perform coronary angiography during acute endocarditis? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011;13(2):158-167.
13. Bruun NE, Habib G, Thuny F, Sogaard P. Cardiac imaging in infectious endocarditis. [Review][Erratum appears in Eur Heart J. 2014 Sep 7;35(34):2334]. Eur Heart J. 35(10):624-32, 2014 Mar.
14. Colen TW, Gunn M, Cook E, Dubinsky T. Radiologic manifestations of extra-cardiac complications of infective endocarditis. [Review] [47 refs]. Eur Radiol. 18(11):2433-45, 2008 Nov.
15. Fagman E, Flinck A, Snygg-Martin U, Olaison L, Bech-Hanssen O, Svensson G. Surgical decision-making in aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis: the influence of electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 50(6):1165-1171, 2016 Dec.
16. Fagman E, Perrotta S, Bech-Hanssen O, et al. ECG-gated computed tomography: a new role for patients with suspected aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(11):2407-2414.
17. Feuchtner GM, Stolzmann P, Dichtl W, et al. Multislice computed tomography in infective endocarditis: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and intraoperative findings. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(5):436-444.
18. Gahide G, Bommart S, Demaria R, et al. Preoperative evaluation in aortic endocarditis: findings on cardiac CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(3):574-578.
19. Koo HJ, Yang DH, Kang JW, et al. Demonstration of infective endocarditis by cardiac CT and transoesophageal echocardiography: comparison with intra-operative findings. European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging. 19(2):199-207, 2018 02 01.Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 19(2):199-207, 2018 02 01.
20. Kim IC, Chang S, Hong GR, et al. Comparison of Cardiac Computed Tomography With Transesophageal Echocardiography for Identifying Vegetation and Intracardiac Complications in Patients With Infective Endocarditis in the Era of 3-Dimensional Images. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 11(3):e006986, 2018 03.
21. Cahill TJ, Baddour LM, Habib G, et al. Challenges in Infective Endocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:325-44.
22. Habets J, Tanis W, van Herwerden LA, et al. Cardiac computed tomography angiography results in diagnostic and therapeutic change in prosthetic heart valve endocarditis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 30(2):377-87, 2014 Feb.
23. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2438-88.
24. Symersky P, Budde RP, de Mol BA, Prokop M. Comparison of multidetector-row computed tomography to echocardiography and fluoroscopy for evaluation of patients with mechanical prosthetic valve obstruction. Am J Cardiol. 2009;104(8):1128-1134.
25. Akhtar NJ, Markowitz AH, Gilkeson RC. Multidetector computed tomography in the preoperative assessment of cardiac surgery patients. [Review] [67 refs]. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 48(1):117-39, 2010 Jan.
26. Rybicki FJ, Sheth T, Chen FY. Cardiac Surgical Imaging. In: Cohn L, ed. Cardiac Surgery in the Adult. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008:179-198.
27. Fairbairn TA, Nieman K, Akasaka T, et al. Real-world clinical utility and impact on clinical decision-making of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: lessons from the ADVANCE Registry. Eur Heart J. 39(41):3701-3711, 2018 Nov 01.
28. Collet C, Onuma Y, Andreini D, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography for heart team decision-making in multivessel coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 39(41):3689-3698, 2018 Nov 01.
29. Kouijzer IJ, Vos FJ, Janssen MJ, van Dijk AP, Oyen WJ, Bleeker-Rovers CP. The value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing infectious endocarditis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(7):1102-1107.
30. Ricciardi A, Sordillo P, Ceccarelli L, et al. 18-Fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography: an additional tool in the diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Int J Infect Dis. 28:219-24, 2014 Nov.
31. Swart LE, Gomes A, Scholtens AM, et al. Improving the Diagnostic Performance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron-Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Prosthetic Heart Valve Endocarditis. Circulation. 138(14):1412-1427, 2018 10 02.Circulation. 138(14):1412-1427, 2018 10 02.
32. Saby L, Laas O, Habib G, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis: increased valvular 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a novel major criterion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(23):2374-2382.
33. Graziosi M, Nanni C, Lorenzini M, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis in patients with an implanted cardiac device: a prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 41(8):1617-23, 2014 Aug.
34. Pizzi MN, Dos-Subira L, Roque A, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/CT angiography in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis and cardiac device infection in adult patients with congenital heart disease and prosthetic material. Int J Cardiol. 248:396-402, 2017 Dec 01.
35. Horstkotte D, Korfer R, Loogen F, Rosin H, Bircks W. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: clinical findings and management. Eur Heart J. 1984;5 Suppl C:117-122.
36. Tsopelas C.. Radiotracers used for the scintigraphic detection of infection and inflammation. [Review]. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015:676719, 2015.
37. McDermott BP, Mohan S, Thermidor M, Parchuri S, Poulose J, Cunha BA. The lack of diagnostic value of the indium scan in acute bacterial endocarditis. Am J Med. 117(8):621-3, 2004 Oct 15.
38. Dursun M, Yilmaz S, Yilmaz E, et al. The utility of cardiac MRI in diagnosis of infective endocarditis: preliminary results. Diagn Interv Radiol. 21(1):28-33, 2015 Jan-Feb.
39. Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, et al. Infective Endocarditis in Adults: Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Therapy, and Management of Complications: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association. [Review]. Circulation. 132(15):1435-86, 2015 Oct 13.
40. Habib G, Badano L, Tribouilloy C, et al. Recommendations for the practice of echocardiography in infective endocarditis. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010;11(2):202-219.
41. Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Med. 1994;96(3):200-209.
42. Aly AM, Simpson PM, Humes RA. The role of transthoracic echocardiography in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153(9):950-954.
43. Harris KM, Li DY, L'Ecuyer P, et al. The prospective role of transesophageal echocardiography in the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected infective endocarditis. Echocardiography. 2003;20(1):57-62.
44. San Roman JA, Vilacosta I, Lopez J, et al. Role of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography in right-sided endocarditis: one echocardiographic modality does not fit all. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25(8):807-814.
45. Lauridsen TK, Park L, Tong SY, et al. Echocardiographic Findings Predict In-Hospital and 1-Year Mortality in Left-Sided Native Valve Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis: Analysis From the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Echo Cohort Study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 8(7):e003397, 2015 Jul.
46. Sivak JA, Vora AN, Navar AM, et al. An Approach to Improve the Negative Predictive Value and Clinical Utility of Transthoracic Echocardiography in Suspected Native Valve Infective Endocarditis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 29(4):315-22, 2016 Apr.
47. Hill EE, Herijgers P, Claus P, Vanderschueren S, Peetermans WE, Herregods MC. Abscess in infective endocarditis: the value of transesophageal echocardiography and outcome: a 5-year study. Am Heart J. 2007;154(5):923-928.
48. Incani A, Hair C, Purnell P, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: evaluation of the role of transoesophageal echocardiography in identifying clinically unsuspected endocarditis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 32(8):1003-8, 2013 Aug.
49. Law A, Honos G, Huynh T. Negative predictive value of multiplane transesophageal echocardiography in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2004;5(6):416-421.
50. Hubert S, Thuny F, Resseguier N, et al. Prediction of symptomatic embolism in infective endocarditis: construction and validation of a risk calculator in a multicenter cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 62(15):1384-92, 2013 Oct 08.
51. Koneru S, Huang SS, Oldan J, et al. Role of preoperative cardiac CT in the evaluation of infective endocarditis: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and surgical findings. Cardiovasc. diagn. ther.. 8(4):439-449, 2018 Aug.
52. Bonfiglioli R, Nanni C, Morigi JJ, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT diagnosis of unexpected extracardiac septic embolisms in patients with suspected cardiac endocarditis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 40(8):1190-6, 2013 Aug.
53. Bensimhon L, Lavergne T, Hugonnet F, et al. Whole body [(18) F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for the diagnosis of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection: a preliminary prospective study. Clinical Microbiology & Infection. 17(6):836-44, 2011 Jun.
54. Ploux S, Riviere A, Amraoui S, et al. Positron emission tomography in patients with suspected pacing system infections may play a critical role in difficult cases. Heart Rhythm. 8(9):1478-81, 2011 Sep.
55. Sarrazin JF, Philippon F, Tessier M, et al. Usefulness of fluorine-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography for identification of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 59(18):1616-25, 2012 May 01.
56. Vind SH, Hess S. Possible role of PET/CT in infective endocarditis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(3):516-519.
57. Yen RF, Chen YC, Wu YW, Pan MH, Chang SC. Using 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in detecting infectious endocarditis/endoarteritis: a preliminary report. Acad Radiol. 11(3):316-21, 2004 Mar.
58. Hyafil F, Rouzet F, Lepage L, et al. Role of radiolabelled leucocyte scintigraphy in patients with a suspicion of prosthetic valve endocarditis and inconclusive echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 14(6):586-94, 2013 Jun.
59. Rouzet F, Chequer R, Benali K, et al. Respective performance of 18F-FDG PET and radiolabeled leukocyte scintigraphy for the diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis. J Nucl Med. 55(12):1980-5, 2014 Dec.
60. Harris KM, Ang E, Lesser JR, Sonnesyn SW. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for detection of an abscess associated with prosthetic valve endocarditis: a case report. Heart Surg Forum. 2007;10(3):E186-187.
61. Wong D, Rubinshtein R, Keynan Y. Alternative Cardiac Imaging Modalities to Echocardiography for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis. [Review]. Am J Cardiol. 118(9):1410-1418, 2016 Nov 01.
62. Zoghbi WA, Adams D, Bonow RO, et al. Recommendations for Noninvasive Evaluation of Native Valvular Regurgitation: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography Developed in Collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2017;30:303-71.
63. Thuny F, Di Salvo G, Belliard O, et al. Risk of embolism and death in infective endocarditis: prognostic value of echocardiography: a prospective multicenter study. Circulation. 2005;112(1):69-75.
64. Vieira ML, Grinberg M, Pomerantzeff PM, Andrade JL, Mansur AJ. Repeated echocardiographic examinations of patients with suspected infective endocarditis. Heart. 2004;90(9):1020-1024.
65. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.