Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Exploratory pilot study assesses volume evaluation using VExUS and LUS in renal transplant patients, suggesting improved care.
Background Accurate volume assessment during immediate post-kidney transplantation period reduces morbidity and mortality. Lung ultrasound (LUS), VExUS score, and bioimpedance (BIA) are emerging methods for volume evaluation. We hypothesize LUS+VExUS may provide accurate means of congestion assessment in renal transplant patients, allowing more precise care. Method Exploratory, prospective, single-centre pilot study. A prospective cohort (Group 1, n = 31) underwent volume assessment using a combined VExUS + LUS protocol on days +1 and +7 post-transplantation, alongside physical examination (PhE) and bioimpedance analysis (BIA). Findings were compared with a historical reference cohort (Group 2, n = 40) managed with standard clinical assessment alone. Results Groups differed significantly in delayed graft function (45.2% vs. 15.0%, p = 0.008) and cold ischaemia time (p = 0.027). Acute pulmonary oedema occurred in 2/31 patients (6.5%) in Group 1 and 6/40 (15.0%) in Group 2, though this difference was not statistically significant (Fisher exact p = 0.452). VExUS showed no correlation with BIA (Spearman ρ = 0.127, p = 0.545), BNP (ρ = 0.187, p = 0.349), or CA-125 (ρ = 0.241, p = 0.226). VExUS detected venous congestion (grade ≥ 1) in 2/14 patients (14.3%) with normal PhE on Day +1. Physical examination showed poor agreement with VExUS (κ = 0.043) and moderate agreement with LUS (κ = 0.469). Combined ultrasound identified subclinical congestion in 28.6% of patients with normal PhE. Ultrasound findings prompted therapeutic modifications in 74.2% of cases on Day +1 (primarily IV fluid reduction) and 16.1% on Day +7. Conclusion In this exploratory pilot study, VExUS and LUS provided additional diagnostic information beyond physical examination and influenced clinical decision-making in the majority of cases. These hypothesis-generating findings warrant confirmation in larger, multicentre, prospective studies with standardised protocols.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barrios et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: