| Literature DB >> 26674928 |
Johannes Kahn1, Torsten Slowinski2, Anke Thomas3, Sergej Filimonow1, Thomas Fischer1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To answer the question whether the TSI (tissue strain imaging) sonoelastography technique can contribute to the diagnosis of chronic renal allograft damage.Entities:
Keywords: allograft; elastography; kidney; tissue strain imaging; ultrasound
Year: 2013 PMID: 26674928 PMCID: PMC4603225 DOI: 10.15557/JoU.2013.0027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ultrason ISSN: 2084-8404
Fig. 1 ADisplay without colored overlay of elastography properties
TSI elastogram: ROI in renal pelvic-calyceal system (1) and renal parenchyma (2).
* Sinusoidal compression gradient. The yellow rectangle marks the moment of elastography measurement (during decompression).
# Displays consistent pressure application during compression time.
▲ Dimensionless elastography value in renal pelvic-calyceal system.
▼ Dimensionless elastography value in renal parenchyma.
Banff classification(
| Banff classification | |
|---|---|
| Group I | Mild interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (< 25% of cortical area), no evidence of any specific etiology (may include nonspecific vascular and glomerular sclerosis) |
| Group II | Moderate interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (26–50% of cortical area), may include nonspecific vascular and glomerular sclerosis (as above) |
| Group III | Severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy/loss (> 50% of cortical area), may include nonspecific vascular and glomerular sclerosis (as above) |
Groups according to Banff classification and TSI elastography results
| Group | Banff classification | n | Mean TSI strain ratio ± SD | TSI calyceal values ± SD | TSI parenchymal values ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Patients without biopsy | 94 | 2,34 ± 1,29 | 0,054 ± 0,028 | 0,023 ± 0,013 |
| B | Patients Banff I | 16 | 2,14 ± 0,78 | 0,045 ± 0,026 | 0,021 ± 0,008 |
| C | Patients Banff II and III | 3 | 1,14 ± 0,37 | 0,032 ± 0,014 | 0,029 ± 0,027 |
Overview of patient population
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient age (years) | 19 | 79 | 54,23 ± 15,01 |
| Patient sex | 59% male | ||
| Donor type (deceased or living) | 72.3% deceased donors | ||
| Transplant age (years) | 9 | 77 | 50,17 ± 15,75 |
| Time between transplantation and ultrasound examination (days) | 72 | 7077 | 1510 ± 1690 |
| Cold ischemia time (min) | 30 | 1560 | 590 ± 363 |
| Mixed ischemia time (min) | 25 | 110 | 53,5 ± 15,8 |
| GFR (ml/min) | 4,98 | 138 | 45,26 ± 20,42 |
| Creatinine (mg/dl) | 0,64 | 9,13 | 1,90 ± 1,16 |
| Transplant size (cm) | 9 | 14 | 11,32 ± 1,25 |
| Resistance Index (RI) | 0,50 | 1,00 | 0,73 ± 0,09 |
| TSI strain ratio | 0,71 | 8,77 | 2,25 ± 1,22 |
Fig. 2Box-whisker-plot of TSI strain ratio regarding the different biopsy groups. There is a significant difference between groups A and C (p = 0.024). No significant difference was shown between groups B and C (p = 0.056) and groups A and B (p = 0.88)
Fig. 3Scatter chart TSI strain ratio vs. serum creatinine
Fig. 4Scatter chart TSI strain ratio vs. glomerular filtration rate (GFR)