SPECT Reviews: Readings and Readers Differ
NB: For those of you watching carefully, this post is a revision of previous posting.
This past week joined in a *virtual* [long distance] consult with a medical colleague who recommended a single screening concentration SPECT [brain imaging] and psych review to assess brain function with an interesting, high-functioning client.
We set up the single concentration SPECT scan in DC, the scans 3-D renderings [brain pictures] were then sent to the consultant and the client, and we had some interesting evidence to review on our teleconference. [This sample is not his scan, but a person with worse, though similar issues.]
What we found was interesting. Yes, he had some *ADD issues* [often overlooked in high functioning individuals], and a bit of depression. Most striking in his current presentation: cognitive anxiety discussed in previous posts.
This is where the good part begins:
It would be gratuitous at best to simply discuss his anxiety and his ADD when he and his medical person already knew that both sets of symptoms significantly interfered with his career. Evidence for both problems appeared in the scans and in his history. Hard to miss.
Then, some other issues showed in the scans: SPECT indicated the possibility of several additional interesting problems: Significant scalloping of the dorsal cortex in the parietal and occipital areas, as well as temporal. The scalloping [dents on the surface scans] was diffuse and more shallow than this sample, and interestingly, he demonstrated all the symptoms that would fit with those basic scan findings [visual memory issues, word recall, social interaction and anger issues].
But the history revealed several surprising additional features: sleep apnea with about 5 total average hours of sleep, 3 drinks [or more at times]/night, exhaustion associated with sleep dysfunction, and very characteristic signs of stress with adrenal fatigue [see previous post on this subject]. Moreover, this particular person had spent years working a blue collar job with highly toxic chemicals as a young man.
His brain looked like he had brain injury. But his problem was not injury, it was a broad metabolic system disturbance with anxiety, depression, and an aggravation of a dormant ADD as only the tip of the iceberg.
Of course, all the tests are not back yet. We ordered a Comprehensive Metabolic Review with Designs for Health/Metametrix, a heavy metal review, and suggested a sputum review for cortisol assessment.
This scalloping is not a result, as is often reported, of *brain injury,* but a clear array of metabolic issues. And, yes, we pushed hard to review use of the CPAP for the sleep apnea.
The SPECT helped us take the discussion to several different levels, and provided clear visual evidence for his pursuing a full metabolic review with the laboratories.
Stay tuned, will keep you posted. Any questions?
2 Comments
Lyle-
So much of what we see when we look more deeply into the essence of psych presentations is multiple etiologies. One med, one intervention, just doesn’t work for all of them. Every one of these multiple issues present in this particular client *likely* needs a specific answer. [we are in *clinical impression* mode now based upon a careful history]
The evidence will tell us more precisely what to do.
My prediction: The homogenization of psychiatry referred to in a previous post already is spreading to SPECT interpretation, and will become more abundant as imaging technology becomes more acceptable. It is so easy to assume that dents and cold spots are brain injury, already a very frequent incorrect assumption, especially absent brain injury history.
On the other hand, SPECT is very solid at confirming *injury,* but with 07 brains we increasingly see “dysregulation” with a more positive prognosis if we fully appreciate the entire metabolic picture.
Thanks!
Chuck
Questions?
Phew!
Very interesting stuff Chuck.
So, I’m assuming more data will help fine tune, calbirate the treatment plan??
Another question: How often, % wise, do you see such a mixture of causal factors?
Thanks for the provocation!
Lyle