UNLABELLED: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the performance and clinical usefulness of an automated injector system (AIS) that administers an automated injection for ictal SPECT after calculating the volume of tracer to be injected over time. METHODS: To test the AIS, repeated injections were performed at different times after tracer preparation. The clinical study consisted of 56 patients with drug-resistant, complex partial seizures. Tracer for ictal SPECT was injected using automated injection in 27 patients and manual injection (MI) in the remaining 29. Injection time (T(I)) was measured in seconds from seizure onset to the end of volume injection. The SISCOM (Subtraction Ictal Spect Co-registered to MRI) procedure was used to locate the epileptogenic seizure focus with SPECT. The definition of seizure focus was made by consensus of the epilepsy unit using conventional diagnostic methods. RESULTS: During the experimental phase, there were no system failures, and the error in injected doses when using automated injection was lower than with MI. During the clinical phase, T(I) using manual injection was 41 s with a range of 14-103 s, compared with an AIS average of 33 s with a range of 19-63 s (P < 0.05). Ictal SPECT and SISCOM successfully localized the seizure focus in 21 of the 27 patients (78%) by AIS and in 19 of the 29 patients (65%) by MI (P = 0.14). Furthermore, nursing staff found the AIS method more convenient than the MI method. CONCLUSION: An AIS can improve the quality of work of the nursing staff in the neurology ward and allow a finer adjustment of the injection dose. Early results using an AIS would indicate a reduction in injection time and improved SPECT accuracy.
UNLABELLED: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the performance and clinical usefulness of an automated injector system (AIS) that administers an automated injection for ictal SPECT after calculating the volume of tracer to be injected over time. METHODS: To test the AIS, repeated injections were performed at different times after tracer preparation. The clinical study consisted of 56 patients with drug-resistant, complex partial seizures. Tracer for ictal SPECT was injected using automated injection in 27 patients and manual injection (MI) in the remaining 29. Injection time (T(I)) was measured in seconds from seizure onset to the end of volume injection. The SISCOM (Subtraction Ictal Spect Co-registered to MRI) procedure was used to locate the epileptogenic seizure focus with SPECT. The definition of seizure focus was made by consensus of the epilepsy unit using conventional diagnostic methods. RESULTS: During the experimental phase, there were no system failures, and the error in injected doses when using automated injection was lower than with MI. During the clinical phase, T(I) using manual injection was 41 s with a range of 14-103 s, compared with an AIS average of 33 s with a range of 19-63 s (P < 0.05). Ictal SPECT and SISCOM successfully localized the seizure focus in 21 of the 27 patients (78%) by AIS and in 19 of the 29 patients (65%) by MI (P = 0.14). Furthermore, nursing staff found the AIS method more convenient than the MI method. CONCLUSION: An AIS can improve the quality of work of the nursing staff in the neurology ward and allow a finer adjustment of the injection dose. Early results using an AIS would indicate a reduction in injection time and improved SPECT accuracy.