Advertisement

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 61–67 | Cite as

Failure to label red blood cells adequately in daily practice using an in vivo method: methodological and clinical considerations

  • A. S. Hambye
  • R. Vandermeiren
  • A. Vervaet
  • J. Vandevivere
Occasional Survey

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the frequency and possible causes of poor red blood cell (RBC) labelling when performing equilibrium gated blood pool (GBP) radionuclide angiography at rest with an in vivo method. The influence of the mode of administration on tagging efficiency was studied by investigating the image quality in 160 patients referred for evaluation of left ventricular (LV) function prior to or after coronary angiography, while using a roughly standardized administration protocol. The patients were subclassified into four groups according to the way both molecules involved in the tagging procedure were administered. When poor image quality was found (in 9.4% of the patients), the labelling efficiency was quantified and the frequency of failed tagging in each group was calculated. A significant association was found between poor labelling and the use of a Teflon catheter or butterfly needle for the injection of the stannous agent. In another 737 patients, in order to avoid the problems observed in the first group, a strict administration protocol was applied to analyse the frequency of poor tagging and its possible causes. Suboptimal image quality was present in 88 patients (11.9%). Quantitatively confirmed poor tagging was present in 36 of the 88 (40.9%, or 4.9% of the whole group); the remaining 52 patients showed borderline normal labelling (>80% bound fraction). Drug interference was studied by comparing the medications used by the 36 patients showing poor binding with those used by 44 control patients. A significant relationship was found between the use of heparin or chemotherapy and the tagging. The influence of several clinical factors on the labelling was also investigated. A significant correlation was found between advanced age, particularly when associated with acute severe disease, and poor labelling efficiency. Finally, in 36 patients with poor labelling, a second GBP test was performed, using either the modified in vivo method or a new commercially available kit for in vitro tagging. This allowed us to evaluate the accuracy of the obtained ejection fraction value when a suboptimal image set is used, and to assess the feasibility of using the new kit in daily practice.

Key words

Equilibrium gated blood pool radionuclide angiography In vivo method Poor labelling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Port SC. Role of radionuclide ventriculography in the assessment of prognosis in patients with CAD.J Nucl Med 1994; 35: 721–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Supino PG, Wallis JB, Chlouverakis G, et al. Risk stratification in the elderly patients after coronary artery bypass grafting: the prognostic value of radionuclide angiography.J Nucl Cardiol 1994; 1: 159–170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pavel DG, Zimmer AM, Patterson VN. In vivo labeling of red blood cells with99mTc: a new approach to blood pool visualization.J Nucl Med 1977; 18: 305–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Srivastava SC, Chervu LR. Radionuclide-labeled red blood cells: current status and future prospects.Semin Nucl Med 1984; 14 68–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seldin DW, Simchon S, Ian K-M, et al. Dependence of technetium-99m red blood cell labeling efficiency on red surface charge.J Nucl Med 1988; 29: 1710–1713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strauss HW, Griffeth LK, Shahrokh FD et al. Cardiovascular system. In: Bernier DR, Christian PE, Langan JK, eds.Nuclear medicine technology and technics, 3rd edn. St. Louis; Mosby Year Book; 1994: 279–284.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimmer AM, Pavel DG, Karesh SM. Technical parameters of in vivo red blood cell labeling with technetium-99m.Nucl Med 1979; 18: 241–245.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Billinghurst MW, Jette D, Greenburg D. Determination of the optimal concentrations of stannous pyrophosphate for the in vivo labeling with99mTc.Int J Appl Radiat Isot 1980; 31: 499–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rao SA, Knobel J, Collier BD, et al. Effect of Sn(II) ion concentration and heparin on technetium-99m red blood labeling.J Nucl Med 1986; 27: 1202–1206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelly MJ, Cowie AR, Antonini A, et al. An assessment of factors which influence the effectiveness of the modified in vivo technetium-99m-erythrocyte labeling in clinical use.J Nucl Med 1992; 33: 2222–2225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Froelich JW, Callahan RJ, Leppo J, et al. Time course of the in vivo labelling of red blood cells [abstract].J Nucl Med 1980; 21 P44.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eckelman WC. Technical considerations in labeling of blood elements.Semin Nucl Med 1975; 5: 3–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    duCret RP, Boudreau RJ, Larson T, et al. Suboptimal red blood cell labeling with Tc99m.Semin Nucl Med 1988; 18: 74–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seawright SJ, Maton PJ, Greenall J, et al. Factors affecting in vivo labelling of red blood cells [abstract].J Nucl Med Technol 1989; 11:95.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millar AM, Wathen CG, Muir AL. Failure in labelling of red blood cells with99mTc: interaction between intravenous cannulae and stannous pyrophosphate.Eur J Nucl Med 1983; 8: 502–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riordan F, Nelp WB. Binding capacity of normal and sickle cell hemoglobin for technetium atoms [abstract].J Nucl Med 1982; 23: P91.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leitl GP, Drew HM, Kelly ME, et al. Interference with Tc99m-labeling of red blood cells (RBCs) by RBC antibodies [abstract].J Nucl Med 1980; 21: P44.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adalet I, Cantez S. Poor-quality red blood cell labelling with technetium-99m: case report and review of the literature.Eur J Nucl Med 1994; 21: 173–175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee HB, Wexler JP, Scharf SC, et al. Pharmacologic alterations in Tc99m binding by red blood cells.J Nucl Med 1983; 24:397–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sampson CB. Interference of patient medications in the radiolabelling of blood cells: in-vivo and in-vitro effects [abstract].Eur J Nucl Med 1994; 21: S17.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sampson CB. Interference of patient medications in the radiolabelling of blood cells: in-vivo and in-vitro effects (communication). 21st symposium on radioactive isotopes in clinical medicine and research. Badgastein, 11–14 January 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tatum JL, Burke TS, Hirsch JL, et al. Pitfall to modified in vivo method of technetium-99m red blood cell labeling. Iodinated contrast media.Clin Nucl Med 1983; 8: 585–587.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. S. Hambye
    • 1
  • R. Vandermeiren
    • 1
  • A. Vervaet
    • 1
  • J. Vandevivere
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentMiddelheim General HospitalAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations