Contrast-enhanced US in Renal Transplant Complications: Overview and Imaging Features.

Renal transplant is the first-line treatment of end-stage renal disease. The increasing number of transplants performed every year has led to a larger population of transplant patients. Complications may arise during the perioperative and postoperative periods, and imaging plays a key role in this scenario. Contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) is a safe tool that adds additional value to US. Contrast agents are usually administered intravenously, but urinary tract anatomy and complications such as stenosis or leak can be studied using intracavitary administration of contrast agents. Assessment of the graft and iliac vessels with CEUS is particularly helpful in identifying vascular and parenchymal complications, such as arterial or venous thrombosis and stenosis, acute tubular injury, or cortical necrosis, which can lead to graft loss. Furthermore, infectious and malignant graft involvement can be accurately studied with CEUS, which can help in detection of renal abscesses and in the differentiation between benign and malignant disease. CEUS is also useful in interventional procedures, helping to guide percutaneous aspiration of collections with better delimitation of the graft boundaries and to guide renal graft biopsies by avoiding avascular areas. Potential postprocedural vascular complications, such as pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, or active bleeding, are identified with CEUS. In addition, newer quantification tools such as CEUS perfusion are promising, but further studies are needed to approve its use for clinical purposes. ©RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Pharmacological treatment of cancer pain and opioid induced nausea and vomiting: online survey and comparison with current guidelines.

PURPOSE: We assumed that in Palliative Care, even in common clinical situations, the choice of drugs differs substantially between physicians. Therefore, we assessed the practice of pharmaceutical treatment choices of physicians for cancer pain and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the rationale for their choices. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with physicians covering the following domains: i) Cancer pain therapy: non-opioids in addition to opioids: choice of drug ii) prevention of OINV: choice of drug and mode of application. Current guidelines concerning cancer pain therapy and prevention of OINV were compared. RESULTS: Two-hundred-forty European physicians responded to our survey. i) Use of non-opioids in addition to opioids for the treatment of cancer pain: Only 1.3% (n = 3) of respondents never used an additional non-opioid. Others mostly used: dipyrone/metamizole (49.2%, n = 118), paracetamol/acetaminophen (34.2%, n = 82), ibuprofen / other NSAIDs (11.3%, n = 27), specific Cox2-inhibitors (2.1%, n = 5), Aspirin (0.4%, n = 1), no answer (2.9%, n = 7). ii) Antiemetics to prevent OINV: The drugs of choice were metoclopramide (58.3%, n = 140), haloperidol (26.3%, n = 63), 5-HT3 antagonists (9.6%, n = 23), antihistamines (1.3%, n = 3) and other (2.9%, n = 7); no answer (1.7%, n = 4). Most respondents prescribed the substances on-demand (59.6%, n = 143) while others (36.3%, n = 87) provided them as around the clock medication. Over both domains, most physicians answered that their choices were not based on solid evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Guidelines were inconsistent regarding if and what non-opioid to use for cancer pain and recommend anti-dopaminergic drugs for prevention or treatment of OINV. CONCLUSIONS: Physician's practice in palliative care for the treatment of cancer pain and OINV differed substantially. Respondents expressed the lack of high-quality evidence- based information from RCTs. We call for evidence from methodologically high-quality RCTs to be available to inform physicians about the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments for common symptoms in palliative care.