JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, C. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, C. D.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 43 No. 12 1727
© 2002 by Society of Nuclear Medicine


Departments

An Alternative to Kinevac

Martin P. Jacobs, MD and Charles D. Peterson, MD

Kettering Medical Center
Dayton, Ohio

TO THE EDITOR:

Our referring physicians have found hepatobiliary scanning with gallbladder stimulation by Kinevac (sincalide for injection; Bracco Diagnostics Inc., Princeton, NJ) to be useful in the management of their patients. With Kinevac no longer available (1), we sought to develop an alternative procedure to provide similar information.

On the basis of our review of fatty-meal gallbladder stimulation studies using ultrasonography (2,3) and cholescintigraphy (4,5), we developed a protocol using a standardized oral fatty meal to serve as the stimulus for gallbladder contraction. At 60 min after the intravenous administration of 185 MBq (5 mCi) of 99mTc-mebrofenin, and assuming normal visualization of the gallbladder, we give the patient 90 mL (3 oz) of heavy whipping cream sweetened with a teaspoon of sugar. This quantity contains 30 g of fat. Imaging is performed immediately after ingestion of the meal and at 15, 60, and 75 min after ingestion. The ejection fraction is calculated using the peak (baseline or, rarely, 15 min) and trough (75 or, rarely, 60 min) counts. On the basis of our previous experience and for simplicity’s sake, background and decay correction are not performed.

We analyzed the data for the first 82 consecutive patients on whom the protocol could be successfully accomplished. The whipping cream was usually not given to patients with nasogastric tubes, and only 2 other patients could not tolerate the meal. When an ejection fraction of <40% was considered abnormal and 40%–49% was considered borderline, 11 (13%) of 82 patients had an abnormal ejection fraction and 21% had an abnormal or borderline ejection fraction. When the same parameters were used on our last 32 consecutive Kinevac-stimulated scans, 3 (9%) of 32 patients had abnormal ejection fractions and 5 (16%) of 32 had abnormal or borderline ejection fractions. For fatty-meal and Kinevac stimulation, the average ejection fractions of all patients were 70% and 71%, respectively.

We conclude that fatty-meal-stimulated cholescintigraphy is well tolerated and easy to perform and results in ejection fraction values similar to those obtained with Kinevac-stimulated cholescintigraphy. We are in the process of evaluating the clinical significance of the ejection fractions obtained with the fatty meal.

REFERENCES

  1. Unexpected shortfalls of two nuclear medicine pharmaceuticals. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(10):16N–19N.
  2. Donald JJ, Fache JS, Buckley AR, Burhenne HJ. Gallbladder contractility: variation in normal subjects. AJR. 1991;157:753–756.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Kaplan GR, Charlesworth CH, Banarsee R. A Mars bar is not an adequate fatty meal: a comparison with Calogen. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:180–181.[Medline]
  4. Shafer RB, Marlette JM, Morley JE. The effects of Lipomul, CCK and TRH on gallbladder emptying. Clin Nucl Med. 1983;8:66–69.[Medline]
  5. Bobba VR, Krishnamurthy GT, Kingston E, Turner FE, Brown PH, Langrell K. Gallbladder dynamics induced by a fatty meal in normal subjects and patients with gallstones: concise communication. J Nucl Med. 1984;25:21–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, C. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, C. D.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE