Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review and meta-analysis of TEE diagnostic accuracy for suspected infective endocarditis

Systematic review and meta-analysis of TEE diagnostic accuracy for suspected infective endocarditis
Photo by Rob Hobson / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider TEE for suspected infective endocarditis when TTE is negative or inconclusive.

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the diagnostic performance of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) compared with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients with suspected infective endocarditis. Data were pooled from studies involving a total sample size of 2,765 patients. The primary outcome measured was diagnostic accuracy, specifically sensitivity and specificity.

The pooled sensitivity of TTE was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55–0.84), and the pooled specificity was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55–0.85). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74–0.82). Significant heterogeneity was present in both sensitivity (I2 = 95.96%) and specificity (I2 = 98.73%). Additionally, publication bias was detected (P = 0.04).

Limitations include the significant heterogeneity across studies and the presence of publication bias. Adverse events, tolerability, and discontinuations were not reported. The authors note that diagnostic accuracy metrics should not be extrapolated to clinical outcomes beyond the scope of the included data.

For patients with high clinical suspicion but negative or inconclusive TTE findings, the authors suggest that additional TEE examination is recommended to improve diagnostic accuracy and support clinical decision-making.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) vs. transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in detecting infective endocarditis (IE).MethodsA comprehensive computerized search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant English-language diagnostic trials or cohort studies published from inception to September 2025. Two independent researchers conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Diagnostic accuracy data were extracted or calculated, and pooled sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 18.0 and related software. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated using Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test.ResultsA total of 13 studies involving 2,765 suspected patients with IE were finally included. A meta-analysis demonstrated that, using TEE as the reference, the pooled sensitivity of TTE was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55–0.84), and the pooled specificity was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55–0.85), with significant heterogeneity (sensitivity I2 = 95.96%, specificity I2 = 98.73%). The area under the SROC curve was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74–0.82), indicating moderate diagnostic performance. Publication bias was detected (P = 0.04). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the overall stability of the results, although heterogeneity sources were identified. Subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant heterogeneity in sensitivity among different TTE subgroups (P = 0.001), while no significant heterogeneity was observed in specificity subgroups.ConclusionTEE remains superior in IE diagnosis. For patients with high clinical suspicion but negative or inconclusive TTE findings, additional TEE examination is recommended to improve diagnostic accuracy and support clinical decision-making.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.