Indian Journal of Urology Users online:2082  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents 
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 290-291
 

Authors' reply


Department of Urology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication8-Jul-2011

Correspondence Address:
Sriram Krishnamoorthy
Department of Urology, Christian Medical College, Vellore - 632 002, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 21814331

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

 

How to cite this article:
Krishnamoorthy S, Gopalakrishnan G, Kekre NS, Chacko N, Keshava S, John G. Authors' reply. Indian J Urol 2011;27:290-1

How to cite this URL:
Krishnamoorthy S, Gopalakrishnan G, Kekre NS, Chacko N, Keshava S, John G. Authors' reply. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2011 [cited 2019 Sep 21];27:290-1. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2011/27/2/290/82860


Sir,

We appreciate the reader's [1] interest in our article on Transplant Renal Artery Stenosis (TRAS). [2] As the reader has rightly pointed out, with an increasing number of patients being detected to have TRAS, there is a growing need for standardization of the definition of significant TRAS.

We would like to reply to the reader's remarks in the following lines.

  1. Conclusion is disappointing: Based on the observations in our study, we had concluded that the decision regarding intervention was largely based on clinical assessment. The flow chart in [Figure 6] indicates that even though 22 of 25 patients were symptomatic, seven of them did not undergo angiogram, as they were clinically stable, with their blood pressure well under control with drugs. Only those patients, who also had a refractory hypertension apart from being symptomatic, were subjected for angiogram. Also, not all those who had an angiogram in this symptomatic group needed subsequent intervention.
  2. Patients with high PSV alone should not be labeled as TRAS: With an increasing availability of Doppler and Magnetic resonance angiography, more patients are being diagnosed to have TRAS. Ferreiros et al. (Ref no: 4) have broadly classified TRAS as symptomatic and asymptomatic varieties. Most of such patients who have an isolated high PSV have been labeled as the asymptomatic subtype and do not require any further treatment.
  3. Authors do not provide data on the reason for a low incidence of TRAS in deceased donors: Majority of patients (94%) in our study have received kidneys from live related donors. The relatively higher incidence of TRAS in live donor group may also partly be due to the higher percentage of live related transplants. Of the 543 patients, only 32 were from deceased donors. Moreover, as the reader has pointed out, the mean cold ischemia time was also relatively shorter, as most of the kidneys were harvested in our own center.
  4. To stress that graft dysfunction is mandatory for the diagnosis of significant TRAS: Most authors have considered TRAS to be significant or not, based on the radiological criteria (Ref no: 12-16). While it is difficult to stress on the fact that graft dysfunction is mandatory to make a diagnosis of significant TRAS, it would not be inappropriate, if we could argue that graft dysfunction is mandatory for deciding on the need for subsequent intervention. [Figure 9] in our article would suggest that the mean increase in the creatinine clearance following intervention was as high as 24.21 ml/min (P = 0.000), justifying the need for intervention in this subgroup of patients who have an associated allograft dysfunction.


 
   References Top

1.Khan TF, Baig MA, Zahid R. Letter. Indian J Urol 2011;27:289-90.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Krishnamoorthy S, Gopalakrishnan G, Kekre NS, Chacko N, Keshava S, John G. Detection and treatment of transplant renal artery stenosis. Indian J Urol 2009;25:56-61.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (258 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1351    
    Printed56    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded54    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA