Clinical predictive value of 20-minute residual rate of diuretic renal scintigraphy in the timing of pyeloplasty

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2024.07.011

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To explore the predictive value of diuretic renal scintigraphy parameters such as 20-minute residual rate (R₂₀) for pyeloplasty in children with congenital unilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Methods ·The clinical data and diuretic renal scintigraphy results of 110 children with congenital unilateral UPJO who were first treated at the Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from August 2018 to August 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The imaging results and the progress of hydronephrosis were followed up after the first diuretic renal scintigraphy. According to the outcome event of pyeloplasty due to the progression of hydronephrosis, the children were divided into operation group and non-operation group. Age, gender, side of hydronephrosis, and baseline diuretic renal scintigraphy parameters including blood perfusion rate (BPR), differential renal function (DRF), time to peak (T_max), time to half (T_1/2) and R₂₀ were compared between the two groups. Logistic regression was used to analyze the effect of various parameters on the progression of hydronephrosis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the predictive value of diuretic renal scintigraphy parameters for surgical intervention. Wilcoxon test was used to compare the examination parameters of two diuretic renal dynamic imaging. Results ·During the follow-up, 60 children underwent pyeloplasty after progression, and the other 50 children did not progress. The differences in DRF, T_max, T_1/2 and R₂₀ between the two groups of children at baseline were statistically significant (all P<0.05). Univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that only R₂₀ was an independent predictor of pyeloplasty (OR=4.730, 95%CI 1.009-1.178, P=0.030). R₂₀ predicted pyeloplasty with a sensitivity of 88.3%, specificity of 56%, the area under the ROC curve of 0.758 (95% CI 0.667-0.850, P=0.000), and the cut-off value of 90.08%. During the follow-up, 38 children underwent the second diuretic renal scintigraphy, and the DRF was lower than before. The difference between the two DRFs was statistically significant (Z=-2.589, P=0.010), especially in children with R₂₀≥90.08% (Z=-2.166, P=0.030). R₂₀ in the non-operation group decreased significantly compared with the baseline (Z=-2.062, P=0.039). However, R₂₀ in the operation group was higher than baseline, but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion ·R₂₀ plays an important role in the prediction of pyeloplasty in children with congenital unilateral UPJO. For children with R₂₀≥90.08%, pyeloplasty should be performed as soon as possible to prevent further deterioration of renal function.

Key words: diuretic renal scintigraphy, ureteropelvic junction obstruction, congenital hydronephrosis, pyeloplasty, residual rate

CLC Number:

R445.5

JI Xueli, GOU Jinyu, CHEN Suyun, FU Hongliang, ZOU Renjian, WANG Hui. Clinical predictive value of 20-minute residual rate of diuretic renal scintigraphy in the timing of pyeloplasty[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2024, 44(7): 899-906.

Figures/Tables 7

TrendMD

References 25

1	Nguyen H T, Benson C B, Bromley B, et al. Multidisciplinary consensus on the classification of prenatal and postnatal urinary tract dilation (UTD classification system)[J]. J Pediatr Urol, 2014, 10(6): 982-998.
2	NGUYEN H T, HERNDON C D, COOPER C, et al. The Society for Fetal Urology consensus statement on the evaluation and management of antenatal hydronephrosis[J]. J Pediatr Urol, 2010, 6(3): 212-231.
3	MALLIK M, WATSON A R. Antenatally detected urinary tract abnormalities: more detection but less action[J]. Pediatr Nephrol, 2008, 23(6): 897-904.
4	LI X, LIU X, LI J, et al. Semaphorin-3A and Netrin-1 predict the development of kidney injury in children with congenital hydronephrosis[J]. Scand J Clin Lab Invest, 2018, 78(1/2): 55-61.
5	TUBRE R W, GATTI J M. Surgical approaches to pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction[J]. Curr Urol Rep, 2015, 16(10): 72.
6	KNOEDLER J, HAN L, GRANBERG C, et al. Population-based comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in paediatric pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction[J]. BJU Int, 2013, 111(7): 1141-1147.
7	ROSS S S, KARDOS S, KRILL A, et al. Observation of infants with SFU grades 3-4 hydronephrosis: worsening drainage with serial diuresis renography indicates surgical intervention and helps prevent loss of renal function[J]. J Pediatr Urol, 2011, 7(3): 266-271.
8	BABU R, RATHISH V R, SAI V. Functional outcomes of early versus delayed pyeloplasty in prenatally diagnosed pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction[J]. J Pediatr Urol, 2015, 11(2): 63.e1-63.e5.
9	BAYNE C E, MAJD M, RUSHTON H G. Diuresis renography in the evaluation and management of pediatric hydronephrosis: what have we learned?[J]. J Pediatr Urol, 2019, 15(2): 128-137.
10	CHERTIN B, POLLACK A, KOULIKOV D, et al. Conservative treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children with antenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: lessons learned after 16 years of follow-up[J]. Eur Urol, 2006, 49(4): 734-738.
11	KOHNO M, OGAWA T, KOJIMA Y, et al. Pediatric congenital hydronephrosis (ureteropelvic junction obstruction): medical management guide[J]. Int J Urol, 2020, 27(5): 369-376.
12	VEMULAKONDA V M. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: diagnosis and management[J]. Curr Opin Pediatr, 2021, 33(2): 227-234.
13	GOPAL M, PEYCELON M, CALDAMONE A, et al. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children-a roundtable discussion[J]. J Pediatr Urol, 2019, 15(4): 322-329.
14	KRAJEWSKI W, WOJCIECHOWSKA J, DEMBOWSKI J, et al. Hydronephrosis in the course of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: an underestimated problem? Current opinions on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment[J]. Adv Clin Exp Med, 2017, 26(5): 857-864.
15	BEATOVIĆ S L, RADULOVIĆ M, JANKOVIĆ M M, et al. Renal output efficiency and normalized residual activity examined by technetium-99^m-DTPA renography have by far greater specificity to diagnose obstructive disease as compared to other conventional parameters of the renogram. First such study of output efficiency[J]. Hell J Nucl Med, 2018, 21(2): 140-144.
16	ASSMUS M A, KIDDOO D A, HUNG R W, et al. Initially asymmetrical function on MAG3 renography increases incidence of adverse outcomes[J]. J Urol, 2016, 195(4 pt 2): 1196-1202.
17	HARRAZ A M, HELMY T, TAHA D E, et al. Changes in differential renal function after pyeloplasty in children[J]. J Urol, 2013, 190(4 suppl): 1468-1473.
18	MCALEER I M, KAPLAN G W. Renal function before and after pyeloplasty: does it improve?[J]. J Urol, 1999, 162(3 pt 2): 1041-1044.
19	RADULOVIĆ M, PUCAR D, JAUKOVIĆ L, et al. Diuretic ^99mTc DTPA renography in assessment of renal function and drainage in infants with antenatally detected hydronephrosis[J]. Vojnosanit Pregl, 2015, 72(12): 1080-1084.
20	KASS E J, MAJD M, BELMAN A B. Comparison of the diuretic renogram and the pressure perfusion study in children[J]. J Urol, 1985, 134(1): 92-96.
21	SHARMA G R, SHARMA A G, SHARMA N G. Comparison of two drainage parameters on diuretic renogram in predicting the fate of prenatally detected pelvi-ureteric junction-like obstruction[J]. Indian J Urol, 2022, 38(3): 216-219.
22	SUSSMAN R D, BLUM E S, SPRAGUE B M, et al. Prediction of clinical outcomes in prenatal hydronephrosis: importance of gravity assisted drainage[J]. J Urol, 2017, 197(3 pt 2): 838-844.
23	HODHOD A, TURPIN S, PETRELLA F, et al. Validation of modified diuretic drainage times criteria in congenital hydronephrosis[J]. J Pediatr Urol, 2021, 17(6): 832.e1-832.e8.
24	WONG D C, ROSSLEIGH M A, FARNSWORTH R H. Diuretic renography with the addition of quantitative gravity-assisted drainage in infants and children[J]. J Nucl Med, 2000, 41(6): 1030-1036.
25	SIMAL C J R. 99mTc-DTPA Diuretic Renography with 3 hours late output fraction in the evaluation of hydronephrosis in children[J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2018, 44(3): 577-584.

Item	Total population (n=110)	Operation group (n=60)	Non-operation group (n=50)	P value (Operation group vs Non-operation group)
Age/month	3.75 (2.03, 6.10)	3.91 (2.38, 6.58)	3.57 (1.96, 6.10)	0.496
Follow up/month	16.21 (4.40, 38.57)	6.33 (3.02, 16.36)	37.48 (18.85, 45.09)	0.000
Gender/n(%)				0.104
Female	23 (20.91)	16 (26.67)	7 (14.00)
Male	87 (79.09)	44 (73.33)	43 (86.00)
Side/n(%)				0.204
Left	84 (76.36)	43 (71.67)	41 (82.00)
Right	26 (23.64)	17 (28.33)	9 (18.00)
BPR/%	43.52 (39.43, 46.97)	42.67 (38.15, 47.13)	43.71 (40.32, 46.86)	0.204
DRF/%	45.33 (43.77, 47.30)	44.64 (43.22, 46.73)	46.57 (44.51, 47.54)	0.003
T_max/min	15.50 (12.88, 19.00)	18.13 (15.00, 19.25)	13.38 (11.13, 16.31)	0.000
T_1/2/min	53.08 (25.05, 101.63)	69.33 (40.58, 198.91)	35.69 (15.94, 72.43)	0.000
R₂₀/%	95.24 (87.46, 99.13)	98.20 (92.30, 99.57)	88.92 (75.87, 97.20)	0.000

Item	Total population (n=110)	Operation group (n=60)	Non-operation group (n=50)	P value (Operation group vs Non-operation group)
Age/month	3.75 (2.03, 6.10)	3.91 (2.38, 6.58)	3.57 (1.96, 6.10)	0.496
Follow up/month	16.21 (4.40, 38.57)	6.33 (3.02, 16.36)	37.48 (18.85, 45.09)	0.000
Gender/n(%)				0.104
Female	23 (20.91)	16 (26.67)	7 (14.00)
Male	87 (79.09)	44 (73.33)	43 (86.00)
Side/n(%)				0.204
Left	84 (76.36)	43 (71.67)	41 (82.00)
Right	26 (23.64)	17 (28.33)	9 (18.00)
BPR/%	43.52 (39.43, 46.97)	42.67 (38.15, 47.13)	43.71 (40.32, 46.86)	0.204
DRF/%	45.33 (43.77, 47.30)	44.64 (43.22, 46.73)	46.57 (44.51, 47.54)	0.003
T_max/min	15.50 (12.88, 19.00)	18.13 (15.00, 19.25)	13.38 (11.13, 16.31)	0.000
T_1/2/min	53.08 (25.05, 101.63)	69.33 (40.58, 198.91)	35.69 (15.94, 72.43)	0.000
R₂₀/%	95.24 (87.46, 99.13)	98.20 (92.30, 99.57)	88.92 (75.87, 97.20)	0.000

Item	Univariate logistic regression analysis			Multivariate logistic regression analysis
Item	OR	95% CI	P value	OR	95% CI	P value
Age	0.485	0.917‒1.200	0.486	1.169	0.924‒1.315	0.280
Gender	2.570	0.836‒5.967	0.109	4.252	1.066‒12.443	0.039
Side	1.591	0.223‒1.385	0.207	0.386	0.353‒2.041	0.534
BPR	2.320	0.874‒1.017	0.128	0.016	0.900‒1.097	0.900
DRF	7.410	0.680‒0.939	0.006	2.056	0.713‒1.054	0.152
T_max	15.390	1.136‒1.467	0.001	0.309	0.861‒1.306	0.579
T_1/2	4.402	1.000‒1.004	0.036	0.077	0.998‒1.002	0.782
R₂₀	15.585	1.056‒1.175	0.001	4.730	1.009‒1.178	0.030

Item	Univariate logistic regression analysis			Multivariate logistic regression analysis
Item	OR	95% CI	P value	OR	95% CI	P value
Age	0.485	0.917‒1.200	0.486	1.169	0.924‒1.315	0.280
Gender	2.570	0.836‒5.967	0.109	4.252	1.066‒12.443	0.039
Side	1.591	0.223‒1.385	0.207	0.386	0.353‒2.041	0.534
BPR	2.320	0.874‒1.017	0.128	0.016	0.900‒1.097	0.900
DRF	7.410	0.680‒0.939	0.006	2.056	0.713‒1.054	0.152
T_max	15.390	1.136‒1.467	0.001	0.309	0.861‒1.306	0.579
T_1/2	4.402	1.000‒1.004	0.036	0.077	0.998‒1.002	0.782
R₂₀	15.585	1.056‒1.175	0.001	4.730	1.009‒1.178	0.030

Parameter	Non-operation group (n=13)		P value	Operation group (n=25)		P value
Parameter	Baseline	Second	P value	Baseline	Second	P value
BPR/%	44.35 (41.58, 46.85)	46.61 (44.71, 48.92)	0.028	43.65 (39.30, 47.07)	38.92 (32.13, 44.76)	0.005
DRF/%	47.34 (45.87, 48.73)	48.83 (46.29, 49.61)	0.116	45.38 (43.80, 46.96)	41.01 (38.77, 45.33)	0.000
T_max/min	14.00 (10.88, 17.63)	11.00 (10.00, 12.63)	0.055	16.25 (12.38, 18.88)	19.25 (11.50, 19.75)	0.503
T_1/2/min	28.17 (15.94, 71.00)	16.49 (9.25, 33.16)	0.382	55.48 (33.82, 84.61)	338.11 (51.43, 999.00)	0.010
R₂₀/%	89.56 (70.76, 96.15)	74.61 (48.34, 86.94)	0.039	95.84 (90.34, 98.60)	99.65 (91.84, 100.00)	0.144