4.6 Article

Ex Vivo Analysis of Kidney Graft Viability Using 31P Magnetic Resonance Imaging Spectroscopy

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 104, 期 9, 页码 1825-1831

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003323

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [SNSF 320030-182658, SNSF PZ00P3-185927]
  2. Mendez National Institute of Transplantation
  3. Leenards Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The lack of organs for kidney transplantation is a growing concern. Expansion in organ supply has been proposed through the use of organs after circulatory death (donation after circulatory death [DCD]). However, many DCD grafts are discarded because of long warm ischemia times, and the absence of reliable measure of kidney viability.P-31 magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) spectroscopy is a noninvasive method to detect high-energy phosphate metabolites, such as ATP. Thus, pMRI could predict kidney energy state, and its viability before transplantation. Methods. To mimic DCD, pig kidneys underwent 0, 30, or 60 min of warm ischemia, before hypothermic machine perfusion. During the ex vivo perfusion, we assessed energy metabolites using pMRI. In addition, we performed Gadolinium perfusion sequences. Each sample underwent histopathological analyzing and scoring. Energy status and kidney perfusion were correlated with kidney injury. Results. Using pMRI, we found that in pig kidney, ATP was rapidly generated in presence of oxygen (100 kPa), which remained stable up to 22 h. Warm ischemia (30 and 60 min) induced significant histological damages, delayed cortical and medullary Gadolinium elimination (perfusion), and reduced ATP levels, but not its precursors (AMP). Finally, ATP levels and kidney perfusion both inversely correlated with the severity of kidney histological injury. Conclusions. ATP levels, and kidney perfusion measurements using pMRI, are biomarkers of kidney injury after warm ischemia. Future work will define the role of pMRI in predicting kidney graft and patient's survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据