Abstract
The aim of this study was to increase the labeling efficiency of 99mTc-RBC. We compared the clinical utility of the conventional modified in-vitro method (MIM) with our new AMC method. Seventy-two patients (M:44 F:28) were examined. The MIM and AMC method were carried out at the same time. The mean labeling efficiency (%) of MIM vs. AMC were as follows: (1) 90.8 ± 11.4 vs. 95.9 ± 6.8 in total ( p = 0.0001); (2) 89.7 ± 12.0 vs. 95.7 ± 6.8 in males ( p = 0.0001), 92.9 ± 10.6 vs. 96.3 ± 3.9 in females ( p = 0.0001); (3) 89.5 ± 12.9 vs. 95.5 ± 7.8 in the G-I bleeding scan ( p = 0.0001), 94.6 ± 4.8 vs. 96.7 ± 3.5 in the liver hemangioma scan ( p = 0.035), 96.2 ± 1.96 vs. 97.5 ± 1.11 in the MUGA scan ( p = 0.08); and (4) 89.4 ± 12.5 vs. 95.5 ± 7.6 in the decreased RBC count group ( p = 0.0001), and 95.9 ± 3.9 vs. 97.1 ± 3.1 the normal RBC count group ( p = 0.062). There were significant differences in labeling efficiency between the MIM and AMC methods. In particular, the AMC labeling method was quite useful in decreased RBC count patients.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
