High Resistive Index in Transplant Kidneys Is a Possible Predictor for Biopsy Complications
2016 (English)In: Transplantation Proceedings, ISSN 0041-1345, E-ISSN 1873-2623, Vol. 48, no 8, 2714-2717 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Background. Transplant kidney biopsies are performed to determine a histological diagnosis for specific patient treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate if Resistive Index (RI) could be a predictor for biopsy complications.
Methods. In this study, 220 consecutive transplant kidney biopsies (136 men and 84 women; median age, 55.5 years) were prospectively included. RI (median, 0.7) was measured by use of ultrasound. Histological diagnoses and biopsy complications were registered. Biopsy needles were either 16- or 18-gauge. Biopsies were performed by radiologists and were carried out as an outpatient procedure (70%) or an inpatient procedure (30%). Usually three passes per biopsy were performed.
Results. The overall complication rate was 6.8%, divided into major (4.5%) and minor (2.3%) complications. An RI >= 0.8 predicts major (13.3% versus 3.2%; risk ratio [RR], 4.2; confidence interval [CI], 1.3-14.1; P=.03) and overall biopsy complications (16.7% versus 5.3%; RR, 3.2; CI, 1.2-8.6; P=.04) compared with RI <0.8. In the group <0.8, RI correlated with age (r(s) = 0.28, P<.001) and systolic blood pressure (r(s) = 0.18, P=.02). In the group >= 0.8, RI correlated with degree of interstitial fibrosis (r(s) = 0.65, P=.006) and systolic blood pressure (r(s) = 0.40, P =.03). The multiple regression analysis showed that in the group <0.8, the RI correlated only with age (P<.001), whereas in the group >= 0.8, RI correlated only with the degree of interstitial fibrosis (P=.003).
Conclusions. An RI >= 0.8 indicates greater risk for major and overall biopsy complications and should result in greater caution after biopsy.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 48, no 8, 2714-2717 p.
Urology and Nephrology
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-128164DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2016.07.016ISI: 000387202100025PubMedID: 27788806OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-128164DiVA: diva2:1049910