BACKGROUND: The intrarenal resistive index is routinely measured in many renal-transplantation centers for assessment of renal-allograft status, although the value of the resistive index remains unclear. METHODS: In a single-center, prospective study involving 321 renal-allograft recipients, we measured the resistive index at baseline, at the time of protocol-specified renal-allograft biopsies (3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation), and at the time of biopsies performed because of graft dysfunction. A total of 1124 renal-allograft resistive-index measurements were included in the analysis. All patients were followed for at least 4.5 years after transplantation. RESULTS: Allograft recipients with a resistive index of at least 0.80 had higher mortality than those with a resistive index of less than 0.80 at 3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation (hazard ratio, 5.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14 to 12.64; P<0.001]; 3.46 [95% CI, 1.39 to 8.56; P=0.007]; and 4.12 [95% CI, 1.26 to 13.45; P=0.02], respectively). The need for dialysis did not differ significantly between patients with a resistive index of at least 0.80 and those with a resistive index of less than 0.80 at 3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.39 to 9.82; P=0.42]; 0.44 [95% CI, 0.05 to 3.72; P=0.45]; and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.20 to 8.82; P=0.76], respectively). At protocol-specified biopsy time points, the resistive index was not associated with renal-allograft histologic features. Older recipient age was the strongest determinant of a higher resistive index (P<0.001). At the time of biopsies performed because of graft dysfunction, antibody-mediated rejection or acute tubular necrosis, as compared with normal biopsy results, was associated with a higher resistive index (0.87 ± 0.12 vs. 0.78 ± 0.14 [P=0.05], and 0.86 ± 0.09 vs. 0.78 ± 0.14 [P=0.007], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The resistive index, routinely measured at predefined time points after transplantation, reflects characteristics of the recipient but not those of the graft. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01879124 .).
BACKGROUND: The intrarenal resistive index is routinely measured in many renal-transplantation centers for assessment of renal-allograft status, although the value of the resistive index remains unclear. METHODS: In a single-center, prospective study involving 321 renal-allograft recipients, we measured the resistive index at baseline, at the time of protocol-specified renal-allograft biopsies (3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation), and at the time of biopsies performed because of graft dysfunction. A total of 1124 renal-allograft resistive-index measurements were included in the analysis. All patients were followed for at least 4.5 years after transplantation. RESULTS: Allograft recipients with a resistive index of at least 0.80 had higher mortality than those with a resistive index of less than 0.80 at 3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation (hazard ratio, 5.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14 to 12.64; P<0.001]; 3.46 [95% CI, 1.39 to 8.56; P=0.007]; and 4.12 [95% CI, 1.26 to 13.45; P=0.02], respectively). The need for dialysis did not differ significantly between patients with a resistive index of at least 0.80 and those with a resistive index of less than 0.80 at 3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.39 to 9.82; P=0.42]; 0.44 [95% CI, 0.05 to 3.72; P=0.45]; and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.20 to 8.82; P=0.76], respectively). At protocol-specified biopsy time points, the resistive index was not associated with renal-allograft histologic features. Older recipient age was the strongest determinant of a higher resistive index (P<0.001). At the time of biopsies performed because of graft dysfunction, antibody-mediated rejection or acute tubular necrosis, as compared with normal biopsy results, was associated with a higher resistive index (0.87 ± 0.12 vs. 0.78 ± 0.14 [P=0.05], and 0.86 ± 0.09 vs. 0.78 ± 0.14 [P=0.007], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The resistive index, routinely measured at predefined time points after transplantation, reflects characteristics of the recipient but not those of the graft. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01879124 .).
Authors: Jochen Herrmann; Ulrich Wenzel; Stephanie Galler; Bjoern P Schoennagel; Jasmin D Busch; Magdalini Tozakidou; Kay U Petersen; Michaela Joekel; Peter Bannas; Jin Yamamura; Michael Groth; Gerhard Adam; Christian R Habermann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael Darmon; Aurelie Bourmaud; Marie Reynaud; Stéphane Rouleau; Ferhat Meziani; Alexandra Boivin; Mourad Benyamina; François Vincent; Alexandre Lautrette; Christophe Leroy; Yves Cohen; Matthieu Legrand; Jérôme Morel; Jeremy Terreaux; David Schnell Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Juan S Danobeitia; Tiffany J Zens; Peter J Chlebeck; Laura J Zitur; Jose A Reyes; Michael J Eerhart; Jennifer Coonen; Saverio Capuano; Anthony M D'Alessandro; Jose R Torrealba; Daniel Burguete; Kevin Brunner; Edwin Van Amersfoort; Yolanda Ponstein; Cees Van Kooten; Ewa Jankowska-Gan; William Burlingham; Jeremy Sullivan; Arjang Djamali; Myron Pozniak; Yucel Yankol; Luis A Fernandez Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 8.086