Skip Navigation



NDT Advance Access published online on September 11, 2009

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfp459
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ploussard, G.
Right arrow Articles by Desgrandchamps, F.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ploussard, G.
Right arrow Articles by Desgrandchamps, F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of ERA-EDTA]. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org



What is the relevance of systematic aorto-femoral Doppler ultrasound in the preoperative assessment of patients awaiting first kidney transplantation: a monocentric prospective study

Guillaume Ploussard1,*, Pierre Mongiat-Artus1,2*, Paul Meria1, Edouard Tariel1, François Gaudez1, Eric De Kerviler3, Christophe Legendre4, Marie-Noelle Peraldi5,6, Denis Glotz5 and François Desgrandchamps1

1 Department of Urology and Paris 7 University, Saint Louis Hospital 2 CNRS U944 – UMR 7212 3 Department of Radiology and Paris 7 University, Saint-Louis Hospital 4 Department of Nephrology and Paris 5 University, Necker Hospital 5 Department of Nephrology and Paris 7 University, Saint-Louis Hospital 6 INSERM U662, Paris, France

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Pierre Mongiat-Artus; E-mail: pierre.mongiat-artus{at}sls.aphp.fr



  Abstract

Background. The purpose of our study was to study the relevance of a systematic aorto-femoral colour Doppler ultrasound (DUS) in the evaluation of first renal transplant receivers.

Methods. We prospectively studied 100 consecutive first renal transplant (RT) receivers. All patients had a preoperative physical examination with a careful vascular system evaluation including assessment of risk factors and colour DUS of aortic, iliac and femoral arteries. Renal transplantation was planned in the right iliac fossa with end-to-lateral vascular anastomoses. Clinical parameters, DUS results, operative and post-operative parameters at 3 months were compared according to the vascular assessment.

Results. Among the 84 patients presenting with a normal preoperative physical arterial examination, 12 patients (14.3%) had an abnormal DUS, revealing atherosclerotic arteries, but no case of arterial stenosis. Among the 16 patients with abnormal physical arterial examination, 10 patients (62.5%) had abnormal DUS, including 4 cases of iliac stenosis. In 3 of the 16 patients (18.8%), DUS revealed right iliac artery stenosis requiring a modification in the surgical procedure. No additional vascular procedure was reported in the case of normal preoperative vascular examination. No technical problems during arterial anastomosis and no post-transplantation arterial complications were reported. In multivariate analysis, abnormal physical examination was the most significant risk factor of atherosclerotic infiltration in DUS.

Conclusion. The abnormality of arterial physical examination is the best clinical predictor of abnormal DUS in preoperative assessment of renal transplant receivers. However, the low sensitivity and positive predictive value of the physical examination do not support the conclusion that DUS can be avoided in patients with normal arterial physical examination. Nevertheless, in the case of arterial physical abnormality, ‘for case’ DUS is critical and helps in the surgical strategy in ~20% of cases.

Keywords: atherosclerotic infiltration; cardiovascular risk factors; Doppler ultra sound; recipient; renal transplantation


* Both authors equally contributed to the study.

Received for publication: 4. 8.09
Accepted in revised form: 13. 8.09


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.