Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of both kidneys in healthy, non-anaesthetized cats

Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica

Hanna Schweiger²  Stefanie Ohlerth¹  Bernhard Gerber² 

[1] Clinic of Diagnostic Imaging, Department for Small Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

[2] Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine, Department for Small Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

关键词: Buprenorphine;    Microbubbles;    Cats;    Kidney;    Feline renal perfusion;    Contrast-enhanced ultrasound;   

Others  :  1234907
DOI  :  10.1186/s13028-015-0172-5

 received in 2015-07-05, accepted in 2015-11-18,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Changes in perfusion are considered to play a key role in the pathophysiology of renal disease. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has shown a promising diagnostic imaging technique to non-invasively and repetitively quantify tissue perfusion. Examination protocols have varied between studies regarding US equipment, quantification software, the use of sedation or anaesthesia, and animals. The purpose of the present study was, to assess the feasibility of a standardized CEUS protocol for perfusion analysis of both kidneys in nine healthy, non-anaesthetized cats.

Results

CEUS was fairly tolerable for all but one cat. In 6/18 kidneys (2 left, 4 right), a second contrast medium injection was needed due to motion artifacts. Perfusion variables such as peak intensity (PI), wash-in slope (WI _S ), wash-out slope (WO _S ) and mean transit time (MTT) did not significantly differ between left and right renal cortex and medulla nor between the cranial and caudal renal cortex within each kidney. In contrast, for all kidneys, mean PI, WI _S , and MTT were significantly higher in the cortex than in the medulla (P = 0.001, 0.012 and <0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

The herein reported CEUS protocol and the perfusion measurements may serve as a baseline protocol and normal reference values for the evaluation of feline patients. However, the protocol and results may be of limited value in uncooperative animals.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Schweiger et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig.1.

Fig.2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF, Cosgrove DO, Gilja OH, Bachmann Nielsen M et al.. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med. 2012; 33:33-59.
• [2]Westropp JL, Buffington CT. Chapter 317: lower urinary tract disorders in cats. In: Textbook of veterinary internal medicine. 7th ed. Ettinger SJ, Feldman EC, editors. Saunders, Philadelphia; 2010: p.1964-1988.
• [3]Debruyn K, Haers H, Combes A, Paepe D, Peremans K, Vanderperren K, Saunders JH. Ultrasonography of the feline kidney: technique, anatomy and changes associated with disease. J Feline Med Surg. 2012; 14:794-803.
• [4]Tublin ME, Bude RO, Platt JF. The resistive index in renal Doppler sonography: where do we stand? Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180:885-892.
• [5]Regan MC, Young LS, Geraghty J, Fitzpatrick JM. Regional renal blood flow in normal and disease states. Urol Res. 1995; 23:1-10.
• [6]Kalantarinia K, Okusa MD. Ultrasound contrast agents in the study of kidney function in health and disease. Drug Discov Today Dis Mech. 2007; 4:153-158.
• [7]Kalantarinia K. Novel imaging techniques in acute kidney injury. Curr Drug Targets. 2009; 10:1184.
• [8]Wan L, Yang N, Hiew CY, Schelleman A, Johnson L, May C, Bellomo R. An assessment of the accuracy of renal blood flow estimation by Doppler ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2008; 34:1503-1510.
• [9]Duranteau J, Deruddre S, Vigue B, Chemla D. Doppler monitoring of renal hemodynamics: why the best is yet to come. Intensive Care Med. 2008; 34:1360-1361.
• [10]Waller KR, O’Brien RT, Zagzebski JA. Quantitative contrast ultrasound analysis of renal perfusion in normal dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2007; 48:373-377.
• [11]Correas JM, Claudon M, Tranquart F, Hélénon AO. The kidney: imaging with microbubble contrast agents. Ultrasound Q. 2006; 22:53-66.
• [12]Piscaglia F, Bolondi L. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006; 32:1369-1375.
• [13]Schneider AG, Goodwin MD, Schelleman A, Bailey M, Johnson L, Bellomo R. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound to evaluate changes in renal cortical perfusion around cardiac surgery: a pilot study. Crit Care. 2013; 17:138. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Seiler GS, Brown JC, Reetz JA, Taeymans O, Bucknoff M, Rossi F et al.. Safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in dogs and cats: 488 cases (2002-2011). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2013; 242:1255-1259.
• [15]Kinns J, Aronson L, Hauptman J, Seiler G. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the feline kidney. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2010; 51(2):168-172.
• [16]Benozzi L, Cappelli G, Granito M, Davoli D, Favali D, Montecchi MG et al.. Contrast-enhanced sonography in early kidney graft dysfunction. Transplant Proc. 2009; 41:1214-1215.
• [17]Grzelak P, Kurnatowska I, Nowicki M, Marchwicka-Wasiak M, Podgórski M, Durczyński A et al.. Perfusion disturbances of kidney graft parenchyma evaluated with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the immediate period following kidney transplantation. Nephron Clin Pract. 2013; 124:173-178.
• [18]Schwenger V, Korosoglou G, Hinkel UP, Morath C, Hansen A, Sommerer C et al.. Real-time contrast-enhanced sonography of renal transplant recipients predicts chronic allograft nephropathy. Am J Transplant. 2006; 6:609-615.
• [19]Fischer T, Filimonow S, Dieckhöfer J, Slowinski T, Mühler M, Lembcke A et al.. Improved diagnosis of early kidney allograft dysfunction by ultrasound with echo enhancer—a new method for the diagnosis of renal perfusion. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006; 21:2921-2929.
• [20]Dong Y, Wang W, Cao J, Fan P, Lin X. Quantitative evaluation of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of chronic ischemic renal disease in a dog model. PLoS One. 2013.
• [21]Dong Y, Wang WP, Cao JY, Fan PL, Lin XY. Quantitative evaluation of acute renal failure in rabbits with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Chin Med J. 2012; 125:652-656.
• [22]Leinonen MR, Raekallio MR, Vainio OM, Ruohoniemi MO, Biller DS, O’Brien RT. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonographic analysis of perfusion in the kidneys, liver, pancreas, small intestine, and mesenteric lymph nodes in healthy cats. Am J Vet Res. 2010; 71:1305-1311.
• [23]Leinonen MR, Raekallio MR, Vainio OM, Ruohoniemi MO, O’Brien RT. The effect of the sample size and location on contrast ultrasound measurement of perfusion parameters. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2011; 52:82-87.
• [24]Stock E, Vanderperren K, Van der Vekens E, Haers H, Duchateau L, Polis I et al.. The effect of anesthesia with propofol and sedation with butorphanol on quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the healthy feline kidney. Vet J. 2014; 202:637-639.
• [25]Restitutti F, Laitinen MR, Raekallio MR, Vainionpää M, O’Brien RT, Kuusela E, Vainio OM. Effect of MK-467 on organ blood flow parameters detected by contrast-enhanced ultrasound in dogs treated with dexmedetomidine. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2013.
• [26]Leinonen MR, Raekallio MR, Vainio OM, O’Brien RT. Effect of anaesthesia on contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the feline spleen. Vet J. 2011; 190:273-277.
• [27]Glover EM, Davis M. Anxiolytic-like effects of morphine and buprenorphine in the rat model of fear-potentiated startle: tolerance, cross-tolerance, and blockade by naloxone. Psychopharmacology. 2008; 198:167-180.
• [28]Böger RH. Renal impairment: a challenge for opioid treatment? The role of buprenorphine. Palliat Med. 2006; 20 Suppl 1:17-23.
• [29]Niscola P, Scaramucci L, Vischini G, Giovannini M, Ferrannini M, Massa P et al.. The use of major analgesics in patients with renal dysfunction. Curr Drug Targets. 2010; 11:752-758.
• [30]Ignee A, Jedrejczyk M, Schuessler G, Jakubowski W, Dietrich CF. Quantitative contrast enhanced ultrasound of the liver for time intensity curves-reliability and potential sources of errors. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 73:153-158.
• [31]Yi K, Ji S, Kim J, Yoon J, Choi M. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound analysis of renal perfusion in normal micropigs. J Vet Sci. 2012; 13:311-314.
• [32]Lane MJ, Brooke Jeffrey R. 2012. 26.3 Normal patterns of renal contrast enhancement. In: Terrier F, Grossholz M, Becker CD, editors. Spiral CT of the abdomen. New York: Springer; p. 270.
• [33]Graham JP. Kidneys and proximal ureters. In: BSAVA manual of canine and feline ultrasonography. Barr F, Gaschen L, editors. British Small Animal Veterinary Association, Gloucester; 2011: p.110-123.
• [34]Steagall PV, Monteiro-Steagall BP, Taylor PM. A review of the studies using buprenorphine in cats. J Vet Intern Med. 2014; 28:762-770.
• [35]Robertson SA, Lascelles BD, Taylor PM, Sear JW. PK-PD modeling of buprenorphine in cats: intravenous and oral transmucosal administration. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2005; 28:453-460.
• [36]Cowan A, Doxey JC, Harry EJ. The animal pharmacology of buprenorphine—an oripavine analgesic agent. Br J Pharmacol. 1977; 60:547.
• [37]Sramek MK, Haas MC, Coleman GD, Atterson PR, Hamlin RL. The safety of high-dose buprenorphine administered subcutaneously in cats. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 38:434-442.
• [38]Ross L. Acute kidney injury in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2011; 41:1-14.
• [39]Labato MA. It’s a ‘kidney’ not a ‘renal’. J Vet Emerg Crit Care. 2011; 21:587-588.
• [40]Burchardi H, Kaczmarczyk G. The effect of anaesthesia on renal function. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1994; 11:163-168.
• [41]Harnorgane Vollmerhaus B. Eingeweide Lehrbuch der Anatomie der Haustiere, Band 2. Frewein F, Gasse H, Leiser R, Roos H, Thomé H, Vollmerhaus B, Waibl H, Nickel R, Schummer A, Seiferle E, editors. Georg Thieme Verlag, Berlin; 2004: p.327.