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
Research ArticleINVITED PERSPECTIVE

Remote-Controlled Automatic Injection Versus Manual Injection in Ictal SPECT of Seizure Patients: Experience from a Children’s Hospital

Ashley Crawford, Scott M. Conners, Michael Czachowski and Ashok Muthukrishnan
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology September 2014, 42 (3) 161-162; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.114.145854
Ashley Crawford
Robert Morris University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott M. Conners
UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Czachowski
UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashok Muthukrishnan
UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Some patients with epilepsy not controlled by medication will benefit from surgical removal of the seizure focus in the brain, if the seizure focus can be identified. The seizure focus has to be localized in one hemisphere only. This is referred to as refractory complex partial epilepsy. The problem is that identification of the seizure focus is not easily accomplished. One way to identify the seizure focus is by electrocorticography, which involves the placement of a grid of electrodes directly on the surface of the brain. This procedure is costly and invasive. Cerebral perfusion imaging is a much less invasive and costly technique that can be used to identify the seizure focus. The 2 cerebral perfusion agents that can be used for this study are 99mTc-exametazine and 99mTc-bicisate.

Cerebral perfusion images of the ictal phase (seizure phase) and interictal phase (when the patient is not having a seizure) need to be acquired and compared. The epileptogenic focus (seizure focus) has to be exactly and precisely identified. This is where the seizure originates—the area of the brain that needs to be removed surgically. To identify the seizure focus, a cerebral perfusion agent must be administered to the patient at the very onset of a seizure. If the radiopharmaceutical is administered quickly at onset, the seizure focus will be identified. If the radiopharmaceutical is not administered quickly enough, the scan may not identify the seizure because the seizure event has spread throughout the brain.

Patients need to be hospitalized for the injection and acquisition of the ictal study. The patients will be monitored via video and electroencephalography for any signs of seizure activity. The onset of a seizure can occur at any time. For the ictal study, the radiopharmaceutical can be administered by a remote-controlled automatic injector (Fig. 1) or by manual injection. Manual injection means that when the electroencephalography technologist sees that a seizure has started, the technologist sends someone quickly to the patient’s room to give the radiopharmaceutical injection. When manual injection is used, the radiopharmaceutical is administered through the intravenous line at the onset of the seizure, usually by a nurse. With the remote-controlled automatic injector, the dose is administered remotely when the seizure starts.

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

Remote-controlled automatic injector (A) and its display (B) (Spectris Solaris EP; Medrad).

Why should a remote-controlled automatic injector be used? Latency time, which is the time between seizure onset and injection, is crucial. The success of imaging the epileptogenic focus lies in injecting the radiopharmaceutical as soon as the patient starts to seize. The average seizure lasts 1–2 min. If the ictal scan tracer is not injected quickly, the scan will reflect seizure spread and will not provide an accurate location for surgery. A time delay can occur while the nurse is being notified, the lead-shielded radiotracer container opened, the syringe removed, and the syringe inserted into the intravenous line port. The use of a remote-controlled automatic injector allows the intravenous injection to be administered in a timelier manner from a nearby room.

How does the remote-controlled automatic injector work? It contains 2 syringes. One syringe is the radiopharmaceutical (99mTc-exametazine or 99mTc-bicisate), and one is the agent that keeps the intravenous line patent. Because of the 30-min shelf life of exametazine, methylene blue is added to extend the shelf life to 4 h if this agent is used. The radiopharmaceutical is reloaded every 4 h. When the seizure occurs, the radiopharmaceutical is administered at a rate of 3 mL per second.

We retrospectively analyzed 2 groups of pediatric patients who underwent ictal SPECT with 99mTc-exametazine (Fig. 2). There were a total of 74 pediatric patients who were injected using either the automatic injector or manual injection. Thirty-three patients were injected using the automatic injector, and 41 were manually injected. Other parameters were reasonably comparable, such as the seizure duration, radiopharmaceutical dose, and injection-to-imaging time. We compared the success of identifying the epileptogenic focus between these 2 subsets. When latency time was compared, the automatic injector averaged 15 s, with a range of 4–20 s. The manual injection averaged 25 s, with a range of 14–35 s. The automatic injector correctly identified the epileptogenic focus in 30 of the 33 patients (91%). The epileptogenic focus was identified in only 20 of the 41 patients who were injected using the manual method (49%).

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Ictal (A) vs. interictal (B) SPECT images.

In conclusion, for identification of the seizure focus in patients with refractory complex partial epilepsy by cerebral perfusion SPECT, we recommend automatic injection over manual injection of the radiopharmaceutical for the ictal scan. In the future, the remote-controlled automatic injector may potentially drive down the cost of identifying a seizure focus by reducing the number of repeated imaging studies and decreasing the length of the hospital stay.

DISCLOSURE

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Footnotes

  • Published online Aug. 14, 2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

    1. Habibian MR,
    2. Delbeke D,
    3. Martin WH,
    4. Vitola JV,
    5. Sandler MP
    . Nuclear Medicine Imaging: A Teaching File. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2009.
  1. Mannella K, Steiner C, Sheetz M. Radiation safety issues for use of an automatic injector for epilepsy ictal brain. Presented at: Health Physics Society Midyear Meeting; January 2013; Scottsdale, AZ.
  • Received for publication July 18, 2014.
  • Accepted for publication July 18, 2014.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 42 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 42, Issue 3
September 1, 2014
  • 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.
Remote-Controlled Automatic Injection Versus Manual Injection in Ictal SPECT of Seizure Patients: Experience from a Children’s Hospital
(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
Remote-Controlled Automatic Injection Versus Manual Injection in Ictal SPECT of Seizure Patients: Experience from a Children’s Hospital
Ashley Crawford, Scott M. Conners, Michael Czachowski, Ashok Muthukrishnan
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2014, 42 (3) 161-162; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.114.145854

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Remote-Controlled Automatic Injection Versus Manual Injection in Ictal SPECT of Seizure Patients: Experience from a Children’s Hospital
Ashley Crawford, Scott M. Conners, Michael Czachowski, Ashok Muthukrishnan
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2014, 42 (3) 161-162; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.114.145854
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • Figures & Data
  • 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

  • Navigating a Transatlantic Career Shift: Guidance for U.S. Nuclear Medicine Technologists Looking to Relocate to the U.K.
  • Ventilation/Perfusion Lung Scan Safety Statement in the Current Coronavirus Disease 2019 Environment
  • The Rise of Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging
Show more Invited Perspective

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire