Non-invasive assessment of kidney allograft fibrosis with shear wave elastography: A radiological-pathological correlation analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of shear wave elastography in assessment of kidney allograft tubulointerstitial fibrosis. METHODS: Shear wave elastography assessment was carried out by two independent operators in kidney transplant recipients who underwent allograft biopsy for clinical indications (i.e. rising creatinine >15% or proteinuria >1 g/day). Allograft biopsies were interpreted by the same pathologist according to the 2013 Banff Classification. RESULTS: A total of 40 elastography scans were carried out (median creatinine 172.5 µmol/L [interquartile range 133.8-281.8 µmol/L]). Median tissue stiffness at the cortex (22.6 kPa [interquartile range 18.8-25.7 kPa] vs 22.3 kPa [interquartile range 19.0-26.5 kPa], P = 0.70) and medulla (15.0 kPa [interquartile range 13.7-18.0 kPa] vs 15.6 kPa [interquartile range 14.4-18.2 kPa]) showed no significant differences between the two observers. Interobserver agreement was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficient of the cortex 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-0.92 and intraclass correlation coefficient of the medulla 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.94). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for detection of tubulointerstitial fibrosis were estimated to be 0.75 (95% CI 0.61-0.89), 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.95) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.53-0.78) for cortical, medullary tissue stiffness and serum creatinine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Shear wave elastography can be used as a non-invasive tool to evaluate kidney allograft fibrosis with reasonable interobserver agreement and superior test performance to serum creatinine in detecting early tubulointerstitial fibrosis.

Association Between Delayed Graft Function and Graft Loss in Donation After Cardiac Death Kidney Transplants-A Paired Kidney Registry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delayed graft function (DGF) is an established complication after donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidney transplants, but the impact of DGF on graft outcomes is uncertain. To minimize donor variability and bias, a paired donor kidney analysis was undertaken where 1 kidney developed DGF and the other did not develop DGF using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. METHODS: Using paired DCD kidney data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, we examined the association between DGF, graft and patient outcomes between 1994 and 2012 using adjusted Cox regression models. RESULTS: Of the 74 pairs of DCD kidneys followed for a median of 1.9 years (408 person-years), a greater proportion of recipients with DGF had experienced overall graft loss and death-censored graft loss at 3 years compared with those without DGF (14% vs 4%, P = 0.04 and 11% vs 0%, P < 0.01, respectively). Compared with recipients without DGF, the adjusted hazard ratio for overall graft loss at 3 years for recipients with DGF was 4.31 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-16.44). The adjusted hazard ratio for acute rejection and all-cause mortality at 3 years in recipients who have experienced DGF were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-1.01) and 1.70 (95% CI, 0.36-7.93), respectively, compared with recipients without DGF. CONCLUSIONS: Recipients of DCD kidneys with DGF experienced a higher incidence of overall and death-censored graft loss compared with those without DGF. Strategies aim to reduce the risk of DGF could potentially improve graft survival in DCD kidney transplants.