Literature DB >> 21771953

Quantitative evaluation of acute renal transplant dysfunction with low-dose three-dimensional MR renography.

Akira Yamamoto1, Jeff L Zhang, Henry Rusinek, Hersh Chandarana, Pierre-Hugues Vivier, James S Babb, Thomas Diflo, Devon G John, Judith A Benstein, Laura Barisoni, David R Stoffel, Vivian S Lee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the ability of quantitative low-dose three-dimensional magnetic resonance (MR) renography to help identify the cause of acute graft dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained. Between December 2001 and May 2009, sixty patients with transplanted kidneys (41 men and 19 women; mean age, 49 years; age range, 22-71 years) were included. Thirty-one patients had normal function and 29 had acute dysfunction due to acute rejection (n = 12), acute tubular necrosis (ATN) (n = 8), chronic rejection (n = 6), or drug toxicity (n = 3). MR renography was performed at 1.5 T with three-dimensional gradient-echo imaging. With use of a multicompartment renal model, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the mean transit time (MTT) of the tracer for the vascular compartment (MTT(A)), the tubular compartment (MTT(T)), and the collecting system compartment (MTT(C)) were calculated. Also derived was MTT for the whole kidney (MTT(K) = MTT(A) + MTT(T) + MTT(C)) and fractional MTT of each compartment (MTT(A/K) = MTT(A)/MTT(K), MTT(T/K) = MTT(T)/MTT(K), MTT(C/K) = MTT(C)/MTT(K)). These parameters were compared in patients in the different study groups. Statistical analysis was performed by using analysis of covariance.
RESULTS: There were significant differences in GFR and MTT(K) between the acute dysfunction group (36.4 mL/min ± 20.8 [standard deviation] and 177.1 seconds ± 46.8, respectively) and the normal function group (65.9 mL/min ± 27.6 and 140.5 seconds ± 51.8, respectively) (P < .001 and P = .004). The MTT(A/K) was significantly higher in the acute rejection group (mean, 12.7% ± 2.9) than in the normal function group (mean, 8.3% ± 2.2; P < .001) or in the ATN group (mean, 7.1% ± 1.4; P < .001). The MTT(T/K) was significantly higher in the ATN group (mean, 83.2% ± 9.2) than in the normal function group (mean, 72.4% ± 10.2; P = .031) or in the acute rejection group (mean, 69.2% ± 6.1; P = .003).
CONCLUSION: Low-dose MR renography analyzed by using a multicompartmental tracer kinetic renal model may help to differentiate noninvasively between acute rejection and ATN after kidney transplantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21771953      PMCID: PMC3157004          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11101664

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  33 in total

1.  Automated quantitative evaluation of diseased and nondiseased renal transplants with MR renography.

Authors:  Jacobus A de Priester; Jacques A den Boer; Maarten H L Christiaans; Alphons G H Kessels; Eelco L W Giele; Arie Hasman; Hans P van Hooff; Jos M A van Engelshoven
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Semiautomated ROI analysis in dynamic MR studies. Part II: Application to renal function examination.

Authors:  G K von Schulthess; W Kuoni; G Gerig; R Wüthrich; S Duewell; G Krestin
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1991 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.826

3.  Evaluation of renographic and metabolic parameters in human kidney transplantation.

Authors:  A González; F Vigués; R Puchal; E Franco; R Bartrons; S Ambrosio
Journal:  Q J Nucl Med       Date:  1997-03

4.  Delayed graft function: risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival.

Authors:  A O Ojo; R A Wolfe; P J Held; F K Port; R L Schmouder
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  1997-04-15       Impact factor: 4.939

5.  Anticipation of renal transplant failure by postanastomosis biopsy and immunofluorescence.

Authors:  D R Tourville; D U Kim; R Viscuso; M Jacobs; S Schoen; D Fillipone
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 1.066

6.  Cortex perfusion index: a sensitive detector of acute rejection crisis in transplanted kidneys.

Authors:  D Anaise; Z H Oster; H L Atkins; A N Arnold; S Weis; W C Waltzer; F T Rapaport
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Fractional mean transit time in transplanted kidneys studied by technetium-99m-DTPA: comparison of clinical and biopsy findings.

Authors:  S Mizuiri; I Hayashi; M Takano; R Ban; T Ohara; Y Sasaki; A Hasegawa
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Normal and hydronephrotic kidney: evaluation of renal function with contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  R Kikinis; G K von Schulthess; P Jäger; R Dürr; M Bino; W Kuoni; O Kübler
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  The value of needle renal allograft biopsy. III. A prospective study.

Authors:  A J Matas; V A Tellis; L Sablay; T Quinn; R Soberman; F J Veith
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  [Usefulness of radioisotope (RI) deconvolution analysis with Tc-99m-DTPA in transplanted kidney].

Authors:  I Hayashi
Journal:  Kaku Igaku       Date:  1989-09
View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  [Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the kidneys].

Authors:  R S Lanzman; M Notohamiprodjo; H J Wittsack
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 2.  [Renal functional diagnostics using magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  Hanne Kirsch; Hans-Joachim Mentzel
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Functional assessment of transplanted kidneys with magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Yu-Ting Wang; Ying-Chun Li; Long-Lin Yin; Hong Pu; Jia-Yuan Chen
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-28

Review 4.  Imaging-based diagnosis of acute renal allograft rejection.

Authors:  Gerold Thölking; Katharina Schuette-Nuetgen; Dominik Kentrup; Helga Pawelski; Stefan Reuter
Journal:  World J Transplant       Date:  2016-03-24

5.  Assessment of renal function using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Octavia Bane; Mathilde Wagner; Jeff L Zhang; Hadrien A Dyvorne; Matthew Orton; Henry Rusinek; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  The diagnostic efficacy of diffusion tensor imaging generated by gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Liu He; Gao Dan; Sun Yuanbo; Tang Fengqiong; Hu Mingcheng; Hongyi Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 7.  Radiologic imaging of the renal parenchyma structure and function.

Authors:  Nicolas Grenier; Pierre Merville; Christian Combe
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 28.314

Review 8.  Non-invasive approaches in the diagnosis of acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Part I. In vivo imaging methods.

Authors:  Oriane Hanssen; Pauline Erpicum; Pierre Lovinfosse; Paul Meunier; Laurent Weekers; Luaba Tshibanda; Jean-Marie Krzesinski; Roland Hustinx; François Jouret
Journal:  Clin Kidney J       Date:  2016-07-28

9.  Characteristics of diffusion-weighted and blood oxygen level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging in Tubulointerstitial nephritis: an initial experience.

Authors:  Tao Su; Xuedong Yang; Rui Wang; Li Yang; Xiaoying Wang
Journal:  BMC Nephrol       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.388

Review 10.  New magnetic resonance imaging methods in nephrology.

Authors:  Jeff L Zhang; Glen Morrell; Henry Rusinek; Eric E Sigmund; Hersh Chandarana; Lilach O Lerman; Pottumarthi V Prasad; David Niles; Nathan Artz; Sean Fain; Pierre-Hugues Vivier; Alfred K Cheung; Vivian S Lee
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 10.612

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.