Search

Abstract Background A number of UK transplantation centres use isotope studies to estimate the relative contribution from each kidney in living kidney donor assessment. The evidence that the estimation of pre-donation split function of the non-donated kidney influences post-donation renal recovery is limited. The aim of this study was to analyse whether, in the context of other donor factors, the split function of the non-donated kidney predicts the percentage recovery of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at one-year post-donation. Methodology A retrospective cohort analysis was undertaken on 291 living kidney donors in the Glasgow Renal and Transplant Unit between 1st January 2011 and 1st June 2022. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analysis was used to analyse the impact of donor factors on recovery of renal function at one year relative to baseline isotope GFR (iGFR) or to estimated GFR (eGFR by Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI] formula). Sub-analyses of donor outcome (% recovery of iGFR and eGFR at one year) were undertaken using single-measures ANOVA and grouping of donors by pre-donation isotope uptake of the non-donated kidney. Results Median recovery of pre-donation GFR at 1 year was 70.0% (IQR 64.8-75.5). On linear regression analysis there was no significant association found between split function of the non-donated kidney and the percentage recovery of iGFR, although a small significant association was found for eGFR. There was no significant difference between mean iGFR or eGFR recovery on sub-analysis of donor outcomes. Conclusions This study demonstrated no clinically important predictive relationship between percentage recovery of renal function at 1 year after living kidney donation and pre-donation split function within the range accepted for donation in our centre.

Abstract Purpose Our objective was to assess a deconvolution and denoising technique based on Legendre polynomials compared to matrix deconvolution on dynamic 18F-FDG renography of healthy patients. Method The study was carried out and compared to the data of 24 healthy patients from a published study who underwent examinations with 99mTc-MAG3 planar scintigraphy and 18F-FDG PET/MRI. Due to corruption issues in some data used in the published article, post-publication measurements were provided. We have been warned that post-publication data were treated differently. The smoothing method switched from Bezier to Savitzky–Golay and the deconvolution from matrix-based (with Tikhonov Regularization) to Richardson–Lucy. A comparison of the split function and mean transit times of the published and post-publication data against our method based on Legendre polynomials was performed. Results For split function, we only observed a good agreement between the processing methods for the 99mTc-MAG3 and the post-published data. No correlation was found between the split functions obtained on the 99mTc-MAG3 and the 18F-FDG, contrary to the published study. However, all calculated split function values for 18F-FDG and 99mTc-MAG3 were within the established normal range. For the mean transit time, the correlation was moderate with published data and very good with the post-publication measurements for both 99mTc-MAG3 and 18F-FDG. Bias of the Bland–Altman analysis of the mean transit times for 99mTc-MAG3 versus 18F-FDG was 1.1 min (SD 1.7 min) for the published data, − 0.11 min (SD 1.9 min) for the post-publication results and .05 min (SD 1.9 min) for our method. Conclusions The processing methods used in the original publication and in the post-publication work were quite complex and required adaptation of the fitting parameters for each individual and each type of examination. Our method did not require any specific adjustment; the same unmodified and fully automated algorithm was successfully applied to all data.