Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
LetterLetters to the Editor

Regarding Pharmacology, Part 3A

Harvey A. Ziessman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology September 2019, 47 (3) 263; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.119.225706
Harvey A. Ziessman
Johns Hopkins Medical Institute 601 North Caroline St., Suite 3231 Baltimore, MD 21278 E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: hziessm1@jhmi.edu
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

TO THE EDITOR: I read “Pharmacology, Part 3A” in the December 2018 issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology by Geoffrey M. Currie (1). I am concerned about one aspect of the discussion, specifically that of cholecystokinin, or its analog, sincalide (Kinevac; Bracco Diagnostics, Inc.), and its proper clinical use. The article states that the recommended dose is 0.02 μg and should be infused over 3–5 min. This method of infusion has been discredited, dating back to 1992 (2). Three-min infusions have been shown to have a very wide range in gallbladder ejection fraction response in healthy subjects and because of this, normal values could not be determined 2001 (3). In addition, 50% of these healthy subjects develop nausea and abdominal cramping. When the same healthy subjects received slower rates of infusions of 30–60 min, there was much less variability in response and normal values could be determined, although they were different for the 2 different infusion rates. Furthermore, no subjects had adverse symptoms.

These findings led to a multicenter investigation sponsored by the Gastrointestinal Council of the Society of Nuclear Medicine (now the General Nuclear Medicine Council of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging [SNMMI]) to determine the optimal method of cholecystokinin-cholescintigraphy infusion by comparing 15-, 30-, and 60-min infusions of sincalide in 60 healthy subjects at 4 institutions (4). The 15-min infusion showed the widest range of response, and similarly clinically useful normal values could not be determined. Some of these healthy subjects had nausea and or abdominal cramping. The 30-min infusion showed less variability; however, normal values could still not be calculated. The 60-min infusion showed the least variability in these healthy subjects, and normal values could be determined (≥38% gallbladder ejection fraction). No patients had adverse symptoms with the 30- or 60-min infusion methods.

These published data strongly suggest that patients given short infusions may have false-positive studies (low gallbladder ejection fractions but without disease) and end up erroneously going to surgery to have their gallbladder removed. The data also suggest that the adverse symptoms are caused by the method of infusion and unrelated to the presence or absence of disease.

The SNMMI Practice Guideline for Hepatobiliary Scintigraphy 4.0, published in 2010, recommends a slow infusion of sincalide (5). Subsequently an interdisciplinary panel consisting of 12 gastroenterologists, surgeons, and nuclear medicine physicians met and then published recommendations in 2011 to standardize sincalide infusion methodology at all centers and specifically recommended the slow infusion method of 0.02 μg over 60 min (6).

Footnotes

  • Published online Apr. 24, 2019.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Currie GM
    . Pharmacology, Part 3A: interventional medications in renal and biliary imaging. J Nucl Med Technol. 2018;46:326–334.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ziessman HA,
    2. Fahey FH,
    3. Hixson DJ
    . Calculation of a gallbladder ejection fraction: advantage of continuous sincalide infusion over the three-minute infusion method. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:537–541.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ziessman HA,
    2. Muenz LR,
    3. Agarwal AK,
    4. Zaza AAM
    . Normal values for sincalide cholescintigraphy: comparison of two methods. Radiology. 2001;221:404–410.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ziessman HA,
    2. Tulchinsky M,
    3. Lavely WC,
    4. et al
    . Sincalide-stimulated cholescintigraphy: a multicenter investigation to determine optimal infusion methodology and gallbladder ejection fraction normal values. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:277–281.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Tulchinsky M,
    2. Ciak BW,
    3. Delbeke D,
    4. et al
    . SNM practice guideline for hepatobiliary scintigraphy 4.0. J Nucl Med Technol. 2010;38:210–218.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. DiBaise JK,
    2. Richmond BK,
    3. Ziessman HA,
    4. et al
    . Cholecystokinin-cholescintigraphy in adults: consensus recommendations of an interdisciplinary panel. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:376–384.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 47 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 47, Issue 3
September 1, 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Regarding Pharmacology, Part 3A
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Regarding Pharmacology, Part 3A
Harvey A. Ziessman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2019, 47 (3) 263; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.119.225706

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Regarding Pharmacology, Part 3A
Harvey A. Ziessman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2019, 47 (3) 263; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.119.225706
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Lung Ventilation: Technegas
  • Reply to “SPECT Views for Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging”
  • SPECT Views for Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging
Show more Letters to the Editor

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire