Reexamining Compliance with Gastric Emptying Scintigraphy Guidelines: An Updated Analysis of the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Database.

Many variables can influence the results of gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES). A lack of standardization causes variability, limits comparisons, and decreases the credibility of the study. To increase standardization, in 2009 the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) published a guideline for a standardized, validated GES protocol for adults based on a 2008 consensus document. Laboratories must closely follow the consensus guideline to provide valid and standardized results as an incentive to achieve consistency in patient care. As part of the accreditation process, the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) evaluates compliance with such guidelines. The rate of compliance with the SNMMI guideline was assessed in 2016 and showed a substantial degree of noncompliance. The aim of this study was to reassess compliance with the standardized protocol across the same cohort of laboratories, looking for changes and trends. Methods: The IAC nuclear/PET database was used to extract GES protocols from all laboratories applying for accreditation from 2018 to 2021, 5 y after the initial assessment. The number of labs was 118 (vs. 127 in the initial assessment). Each protocol was again evaluated for compliance with the methods described in the SNMMI guideline. The same 14 variables were assessed in a binary fashion: patient preparation (4 variables-types of medications withheld, withholding of these medication for 48 h, blood glucose ≤ 200 mg/dL, blood glucose recorded), meal (5 variables-use of consensus meal, nothing by mouth for 4 h or more, meal consumed within 10 min, documentation of percentage of meal consumed, meal labeled with 18.5-37 MBq [0.5-1.0 mCi]), acquisition (2 variables-anterior and posterior projections obtained, imaging each hour out to 4 h), and processing (3 variables-use of the geometric mean, decay correction of data, and measurement of percentage retention). Results: Protocols from the 118 labs demonstrated that compliance is improving in some key areas but remains suboptimal in others. Overall, labs were compliant with an average of 8 of the 14 variables, with a low of 1-variable compliance at 1 site, and only 4 sites compliant with all 14 variables. Nineteen sites met an 80% threshold for compliance (11+ variables). The variable with the highest compliance was the patient's taking nothing by mouth for 4 h or more before the exam (97%). The variable with the lowest compliance was the recording of blood glucose values (3%). Notable areas of improvement include the use of the consensus meal, now 62% versus previously only 30% of labs. Greater compliance was also noted with measurement of retention percentages (instead of emptying percentages or half-times), with compliance by 65% of sites versus only 35% 5 y prior. Conclusion: Almost 13 y after the publication of the SNMMI GES guidelines, there is improving but still suboptimal protocol adherence among laboratories applying for IAC accreditation. Persistent variation in the performance of GES protocols may significantly affect patient management, as results may be unreliable. Using the standardized GES protocol permits interpretation of results in a consistent manner that allows interlaboratory comparisons and fosters acceptance of the test validity by referring clinicians.