4.5 Article

Diffusion-weighted imaging in assessing renal pathology of chronic kidney disease: A preliminary clinical study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 83, 期 5, 页码 756-762

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.01.024

关键词

Diffusion-weighted imaging; Chronic kidney disease; Pathology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the clinical potential of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in assessing renal pathology of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Seventy-one CKD patients and twelve healthy volunteers were examined using DWI with prospective acquisition correction. Renal biopsy specimens from the CKD patients were scored based on the severity of renal pathology and to confirm pathology type. CKD patients were divided into three groups according to pathology scores: mild, moderate, or severe. The association between renal apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and pathology scores was investigated using Pearson's correlation and single factor analysis of variance. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to explore associations between renal ADC values and pathology score, glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine, and age. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was conducted to compare ADC values and pathology type. Results: Renal ADC values correlated negatively with pathology scores (r=-0.633, P<0.001). The ADC values among the four groups (mild, moderate, severe impairment, and controls) were significantly different (F=19.512, P<0.001). However, when patients were stratified by pathology type, no significant differences were found in ADC values among these groups (chi(2)=9.929, P=0.270). Further multiple linear regression analysis showed that only the pathology score and ADC values were related (t=-4.586, P=0.000). Conclusions: DWI has clinical potential in assessing the severity of renal pathology in CKD and shows promise as a non-invasive and effective technique to guide therapy and follow-up. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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