4.5 Article

A prospective comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and 51Cr-EDTA clearance for glomerular filtration rate measurement in 42 kidney transplant recipients

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 117, Issue -, Pages 209-215

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.02.002

Keywords

Functional MRI; Kidney transplant; Glomerular filtration rate; Data accuracy

Funding

  1. French National Research Agency (ANR) [ANR-10-LABX-57]
  2. French State [ANR-10-IDEX-03-02]
  3. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux [AOI-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) compared with the reference standard technique of urinary clearance of Cr-51-EDTA. Patients and methods: All kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with an indication for non-urgent contrast-enhanced MRI at our institution were prospectively included between 2008 and 2012. Renographies were acquired by low-dose dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) then fitted with a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model. MR-GFR was compared with reference isotopic measurements using Bland-Altman diagrams, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and concordance rates. Results: Forty-two KTRs (mean age 51.5 years, 26-74) were analyzed. Mean estimated GFR was 48.5 +/- 27 mL/min/1.73m(2) (24-178 mL/min). The mean bias was + 13.2 mL/min (6.4-20.0, +36.9%) ranging from -31.0 mL/min (-41.7%) to + 101.4 mL/min (+89.2%) with a large variability (standard-deviation: 22.3 mL/min; limits of agreement: [-30.6 (-43.3-18.9); + 57.0 (45.3-68.7)]). The ICC was 0.32 (0.02-0.56) and the concordance rate was 28.6% (14.9-42.2). Conclusions: The large variability of MR-GFR compared with the reference technique precludes its use in KTRs, whose anatomical peculiarities make standardization of arterial input function (AIF) difficult.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available