Measuring SeHCAT retention: the use of a collimated gamma camera

75SeHCAT scan in bile acid malabsorption in chronic diarrhoea

Chronic diarrhoea is a common entity in daily clinical practice and it leads to a loss in these patients quality of life. It may be the main symptom of multiple ethiologies including bile acid malabsorption (BAM) which has a comparable prevalence to celiac disease. The BAM results from imbalances in the homeostasis of bile acids in the enterohepatic circulation. It can be a consequence of ileal disease or ileal dysfunction (BAM type i), it can be considered idiopathic or primary (BAM type ii) or associated with other gastrointestinal entities (BAM type iii). Among the different diagnostic methods available, ⁷⁵SeHCAT study is the primary current method due to its sensitivity, specificity, safety and low cost. The main disadvantage is that it's not available in all countries, so other diagnostic methods have appeared, such as serum measurement of FGF19 and C4, however they are significantly more complex and costly. The first-line treatment of bile acid diarrhoea is bile acid sequestrant, such as cholestyramine, which can be difficult to administer due to its poor tolerability and gastrointestinal side effects. These are less prominent with newer agents such as colesevelam. In summary, the BAM is a common entity underdiagnosed and undertreated, so it is essential to establish a diagnosis algorithm of chronic diarrhoea in which the ⁷⁵SeHCAT study would be first or second line in the differential diagnosis of these patients.

SeHCAT retention values as measured with a collimated and an uncollimated gamma camera: a method comparison study

TauroH-23-(Se) selena-25-homocholic acid retention values are used in the diagnosis of bile acid malabsorption. The standard method for measuring values is with an uncollimated gamma camera, which can create some logistic difficulties, with other background sources of activity, which are irrelevant when a collimator is used, becoming significant. In this study we compare the retention values obtained with a collimated and an uncollimated gamma camera in phantoms and in 23 patients. Bland-Altman plots were created using the data, which showed a mean bias in retention of 0.10% in the phantom study and 0.55% in the patient study between methods. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the null hypothesis of zero median difference between uncollimated and collimated methods was not statistically significant to P values less than 0.05 in the patient and phantom studies. In the patient study, on using a fixed boundary of retention (10%) between positive and negative status, the status of one patient was changed from negative (12%) to positive (9%). We conclude that measurement of retention with a collimated gamma camera is similar but not identical to that of uncollimated values. The clinical significance of this shift is unclear, as the threshold of significance and the method of integrating this measure with other clinical factors into management remain unclear.