RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Validation of Glomerular Filtration Rate Measurement with Blood Sampling from the Injection Site
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
JO J. Nucl. Med. Technol.
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 305
OP 308
DO 10.2967/jnmt.119.229153
VO 47
IS 4
A1 Bethelhem W. Mekonnen
A1 James M. Warwick
A1 Jennifer L. Holness
YR 2019
UL http://tech.snmjournals.org/content/47/4/305.abstract
AB Measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from the plasma clearance of a radionuclide-labeled tracer is reliable and accurate. However, to avoid contamination of the blood samples with radioactivity remaining at the injection site, venepuncture at 2 or more sites is required: one for tracer administration and the others for blood sampling. This requirement is uncomfortable for patients, particularly when venous access is difficult. The objective of this study was to validate the use of a single site of venous access in combination with injection site imaging, for GFR measurement. Methods: Twenty-two adults (≥18 y) who were referred for GFR determination were included prospectively. GFR was measured from the plasma clearance of 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid according to international guidelines. After administration of the tracer through an intravenous cannula, a 60-s static image of the injection site was acquired. A second intravenous cannula was inserted into the contralateral arm. Venous blood samples were collected at 2, 3, and 4 h after administration of the radiotracer from both the injection site (experimental) and the contralateral arm (conventional). GFR was calculated using slope-intercept and single-sample methods. The median conventional and experimental plasma counts (decay- and background-corrected) were compared for the 2-, 3-, and 4-h venous samples. Conventional and experimental GFRs were then compared, with a more than 10% difference between conventional and experimental GFRs being regarded as significant. Results: Four individuals had visible residual activity at the injection site. The median 2-h counts differed significantly between the conventional and experimental sampling sites (P = 0.007), whereas no significant difference was found at 3 or 4 h. When there was a clear injection site image, the difference between the experimental and conventional GFRs was more than 10% in 1 case for single-sample GFR but less than 8% in all cases for slope-intercept GFR. Conclusion: In cases with clear injection site images, slope-intercept GFR calculated after injection site blood sampling showed no clinically significant difference from conventional contralateral-arm sampling.