title: An Analysis of 3 Common CardioGen-82 82Rb Infusion System Injection Methods and Their Impact on Clinical Volume and Image Counts.
abstract: In the wake of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall, many clinics have had to reduce their examination volumes to meet the new generator volume usage requirements. This review tests 3 common infusion methods and how they affect patient dose, generator volume usage, image counts, and generator volume limits.
  
  
  METHODS
  Three common configurations of the (82)Rb infusion system settings--standard 50-mL, volume-limiting, and bolus methods--were tested to determine how they affect patient dose, generator volume, and image counts. Each injection configuration was tested daily for the duration of 3 consecutive generators by injection into separate vials. Each injection configuration was also infused into a beaker and imaged to determine the impact of image counts for each method. The total estimated volumes for multiple examination and quality assurance clinical situations were simulated to observe the use of each method relative to the new FDA volume alert and expiration limits.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Vial tests confirmed that the bolus method used the least amount of volume per infusion and stayed the most consistent throughout the life of the generator. The bolus method also produced a lower patient dose after approximately 10 d of use. The beaker tests in the scanner showed that the standard 50-mL method produced the greatest number of total counts for the flow and uptake images. On the basis of the estimated total volume simulations, the bolus method allowed for the most examinations over the life of the generator while staying within the new FDA limits.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  All 3 methods for augmenting the (82)Rb infusion system produced different outcomes for patient dose, image counts, and total generator volume use. The standard 50-mL method ensured the maximum amount of counts available for imaging throughout the life of the generator. The bolus method provided a consistent and predictable amount of volume use. The volume-limiting method fell somewhere in the middle of volume predictability and count preservation.
authors.affiliation: Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas.
authors.forename: Amanda E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Roby
authors.affiliation: Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas.
authors.forename: Nils P
authors.initials: NP
authors.lastname: Johnson
authors.affiliation: Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas k.lance.gould@uth.tmc.edu.
authors.forename: K Lance
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Gould
mesh_terms: D003952:Diagnostic Imaging / Q000009:adverse effects; D016503:Drug Delivery Systems / Q000379:methods*; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D000069079:Radiation Exposure / Q000517:prevention & control; D012414:Rubidium Radioisotopes / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects
chemical_list: D012414:Rubidium Radioisotopes
keywords:    82Rb dose;  82Rb generator; 82Rb expiration; elution volume