Renal Transplant Dysfunction

Variant: 1 Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler kidney transplant	Usually Appropriate	O
US pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Arteriography kidney	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy antegrade pyelography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Image-guided biopsy kidney	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
DTPA renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MAG3 renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
Arteriography kidney	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
DTPA renal scan	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler kidney transplant	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Image-guided biopsy kidney	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MAG3 renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler kidney transplant	May Be Appropriate	O
US pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Arteriography kidney	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Image-guided biopsy kidney	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
DTPA renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MAG3 renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler kidney transplant	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Arteriography kidney	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy antegrade pyelography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Image-guided biopsy kidney	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
DTPA renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MAG3 renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 5 Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Image-guided biopsy kidney	Usually Appropriate	Varies
US duplex Doppler kidney transplant	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Arteriography kidney	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy antegrade pyelography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
DTPA renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MAG3 renal scan	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTV pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Myles T. Taffel, MD^a; Gaurav Khatri, MD^b; Andrei S. Purysko, MD^c; Ryan Avery, MD^d; Melanie P. Caserta, MD^e; Silvia D. Chang, MD^f; Alberto Diaz De Leon, MD^g; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan, MBBS^h; Rajan T. Gupta, MDⁱ; Susie Q. Lew, MD^j; Andrej Lyshchik, MD, PhD^k; Refky Nicola, DO, MSc^l; Carl Piel Jr., DO^m; Alp Sener, MD, PhDⁿ; Andrew D. Smith, MD, PhD^o; Paul Nikolaidis, MD^p.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography kidney

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
E. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
F. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
G. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
H. CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
I. CTA pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
J. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
K. CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
L. CTV pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
M. DTPA renal scan

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
N. Fluoroscopy antegrade pyelography

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
O. Image-guided biopsy kidney

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
P. MAG3 renal scan

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
Q. MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
R. MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
S. MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
T. MRA pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
U. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
V. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
W. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
X. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
Y. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
Z. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
[. MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
\. MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
]. US duplex Doppler kidney transplant

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
^. US pelvis

Variant 1: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. Initial imaging.
_. US pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
A. Arteriography kidney

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
E. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
F. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
G. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
H. CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
I. CTA pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
J. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
K. CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
L. CTV pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
M. DTPA renal scan

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
N. Image-guided biopsy kidney

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
O. MAG3 renal scan

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
P. MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
Q. MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
R. MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
S. MRA pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
T. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
U. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
V. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
W. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
X. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
Y. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
Z. MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
[. MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
\. US duplex Doppler kidney transplant

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
]. US pelvis

Variant 2: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for arterial etiology. Next imaging study.
^. US pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
A. Arteriography kidney

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
E. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
F. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
G. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
H. CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
I. CTA pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
J. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
K. CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
L. CTV pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
M. DTPA renal scan

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
N. Image-guided biopsy kidney

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
O. MAG3 renal scan

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
P. MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
Q. MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
R. MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
S. MRA pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
T. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
U. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
V. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
W. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
X. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
Y. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
Z. MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
[. MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
\. US duplex Doppler kidney transplant

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
]. US pelvis

Variant 3: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for venous etiology. Next imaging study.
^. US pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
A. Arteriography kidney

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
E. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
F. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
G. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
H. CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
I. CTA pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
J. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
K. CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
L. CTV pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
M. DTPA renal scan

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
N. Fluoroscopy antegrade pyelography

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
O. Image-guided biopsy kidney

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
P. MAG3 renal scan

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
Q. MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
R. MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
S. MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
T. MRA pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
U. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
V. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
W. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
X. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
Y. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
Z. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
[. MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
\. MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
]. US duplex Doppler kidney transplant

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
^. US pelvis

Variant 4: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US suspicious for, but not conclusive for extrinsic etiology. Next imaging study.
_. US pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Arteriography kidney

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
I. CTA pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
J. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
K. CTV abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
L. CTV pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
M. DTPA renal scan

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
N. Fluoroscopy antegrade pyelography

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
O. Image-guided biopsy kidney

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
P. MAG3 renal scan

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Q. MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
R. MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
S. MRA pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
T. MRA pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
U. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
V. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
W. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
X. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Y. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Z. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
[. MRV abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
\. MRV pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
]. US duplex Doppler kidney transplant

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
^. US pelvis

Variant 5: Adult. Renal transplant dysfunction. US unremarkable or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
_. US pelvis with IV contrast

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Elsayes KM, Menias CO, Willatt J, Azar S, Harvin HJ, Platt JF. Imaging of renal transplant: utility and spectrum of diagnostic findings. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2011;40:127-39.
2.	OPTN/SRTR: Transplant Data. Available at: https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data/#.
3.	Dubovsky EV, Russell CD, Erbas B. Radionuclide evaluation of renal transplants. Semin Nucl Med. 1995; 25(1):49-59.
4.	Sharfuddin A. Imaging evaluation of kidney transplant recipients. Semin Nephrol 2011;31:259-71.
5.	Zarzour JG, Lockhart ME. Ultrasonography of the Renal Transplant. Ultrasound Clinics 2014;9:683-95.
6.	Dimitroulis D, Bokos J, Zavos G, et al. Vascular complications in renal transplantation: a single-center experience in 1367 renal transplantations and review of the literature. Transplant Proc 2009;41:1609-14.
7.	Eufrasio P, Parada B, Moreira P, et al. Surgical complications in 2000 renal transplants. Transplant Proc 2011;43:142-4.
8.	Akbar SA, Jafri SZ, Amendola MA, Madrazo BL, Salem R, Bis KG. Complications of renal transplantation. Radiographics 2005;25:1335-56.
9.	Sharfuddin A. Renal relevant radiology: imaging in kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2014;9:416-29.
10.	Smith AD, Nikolaidis P, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Pyelonephritis: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol. 2022 Nov;19(11S):S1546-1440(22)00651-2.
11.	Kazmierski BJ, Sharbidre KG, Robbin ML, Grant EG. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for the Evaluation of Renal Transplants. [Review]. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 39(12):2457-2468, 2020 Dec.
12.	Morgan TA, Jha P, Poder L, Weinstein S. Advanced ultrasound applications in the assessment of renal transplants: contrast-enhanced ultrasound, elastography, and B-flow. [Review]. Abdominal Radiology. 43(10):2604-2614, 2018 10.
13.	Heaf JG, Iversen J. Uses and limitations of renal scintigraphy in renal transplantation monitoring. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000; 27(7):871-879.
14.	Yazici B, Yazici A, Oral A, Akgun A, Toz H. Comparison of renal transplant scintigraphy with renal resistance index for prediction of early graft dysfunction and evaluation of acute tubular necrosis and acute rejection. Clin Nucl Med 2013;38:931-5.
15.	Aktas A, Aras M, Colak T, Gencoglu A, Karakayali H. Comparison of Tc-99m DTPA and Tc-99m MAG3 perfusion time-activity curves in patients with renal allograft dysfunction. Transplant Proc. 38(2):449-53, 2006 Mar.
16.	Lubin E, Shapira Z, Melloul M, Youssim A. Scintigraphic detection of vascular and urological complications in the transplanted kidney: 133 cases. Eur J Nucl Med 1985;10:313-6.
17.	Zavos G, Pappas P, Karatzas T, et al. Urological complications: analysis and management of 1525 consecutive renal transplantations. Transplant Proc. 40(5):1386-90, 2008 Jun.
18.	Rodriguez Faba O, Boissier R, Budde K, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Transplantation: Update 2018. Eur Urol Focus. 4(2):208-215, 2018 03.
19.	Lee SF, Lichtenstein M, Hughes P, Sivaratnam D. Utility of MAG3 scintigraphy with the use of a 2 min uptake parameter in the assessment of postsurgical renal transplant complications. Nucl Med Commun. 39(10):921-927, 2018 Oct.
20.	Aktas A. Transplanted kidney function evaluation. Semin Nucl Med 2014;44:129-45.
21.	Nankivell BJ, Cohn DA, Spicer ST, Evans SG, Chapman JR, Gruenewald SM. Diagnosis of kidney transplant obstruction using Mag3 diuretic renography. Clin Transplant. 15(1):11-8, 2001 Feb.
22.	Buckley AR, Cooperberg PL, Reeve CE, Magil AB. The distinction between acute renal transplant rejection and cyclosporine nephrotoxicity: value of duplex sonography. AJR. 1987; 149(3):521-525.
23.	Steinberg HV, Nelson RC, Murphy FB, et al. Renal allograft rejection: evaluation by Doppler US and MR imaging. Radiology. 1987; 162(2):337-342.
24.	Genkins SM, Sanfilippo FP, Carroll BA. Duplex Doppler sonography of renal transplants: lack of sensitivity and specificity in establishing pathologic diagnosis. AJR. 1989; 152(3):535-539.
25.	Rifkin MD, Needleman L, Pasto ME, et al. Evaluation of renal transplant rejection by duplex Doppler examination: value of the resistive index. AJR. 1987; 148(4):759-762.
26.	Radermacher J, Mengel M, Ellis S, et al. The renal arterial resistance index and renal allograft survival. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(2):115-124.
27.	McArthur C, Geddes CC, Baxter GM. Early measurement of pulsatility and resistive indexes: correlation with long-term renal transplant function. Radiology. 2011; 259(1):278-285.
28.	Naesens M, Heylen L, Lerut E, et al. Intrarenal resistive index after renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1797-806.
29.	Baxter GM, Ireland H, Moss JG, et al. Colour Doppler ultrasound in renal transplant artery stenosis: which Doppler index? Clin Radiol. 1995; 50(9):618-622.
30.	Krumme B, Grotz W, Kirste G, Schollmeyer P, Rump LC. Determinants of intrarenal Doppler indices in stable renal allografts. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1997; 8(5):813-816.
31.	Patel U, Khaw KK, Hughes NC. Doppler ultrasound for detection of renal transplant artery stenosis-threshold peak systolic velocity needs to be higher in a low-risk or surveillance population. Clin Radiol 2003;58:772-7.
32.	de Morais RH, Muglia VF, Mamere AE, et al. Duplex Doppler sonography of transplant renal artery stenosis. J Clin Ultrasound. 2003; 31(3):135-141.
33.	AbuRahma AF, Srivastava M, Mousa AY, et al. Critical analysis of renal duplex ultrasound parameters in detecting significant renal artery stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2012; 56(4):1052-1059, 1060 e1051; discussion 1059-1060.
34.	Fananapazir G, McGahan JP, Corwin MT, et al. Screening for Transplant Renal Artery Stenosis: Ultrasound-Based Stenosis Probability Stratification. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 209(5):1064-1073, 2017 Nov.
35.	Baxter GM. Imaging in renal transplantation. Ultrasound Q. 2003; 19(3):123-138.
36.	Baxter GM, Morley P, Dall B. Acute renal vein thrombosis in renal allografts: new Doppler ultrasonic findings. Clin Radiol. 1991; 43(2):125-127.
37.	Lockhart ME, Wells CG, Morgan DE, Fineberg NS, Robbin ML. Reversed diastolic flow in the renal transplant: perioperative implications versus transplants older than 1 month. AJR. 2008; 190(3):650-655.
38.	Glebova NO, Brooke BS, Desai NM, Lum YW. Endovascular interventions for managing vascular complication of renal transplantation. Semin Vasc Surg 2013;26:205-12.
39.	Marini M, Fernandez-Rivera C, Cao I, et al. Treatment of transplant renal artery stenosis by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and/or stenting: study in 63 patients in a single institution. Transplant Proc 2011;43:2205-7.
40.	Sharma S, Potdar A, Kulkarni A. Percutaneous transluminal renal stenting for transplant renal artery stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011;77:287-93.
41.	Audard V, Matignon M, Hemery F, et al. Risk factors and long-term outcome of transplant renal artery stenosis in adult recipients after treatment by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Am J Transplant. 2006; 6(1):95-99.
42.	Beecroft JR, Rajan DK, Clark TW, Robinette M, Stavropoulos SW. Transplant renal artery stenosis: outcome after percutaneous intervention. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004; 15(12):1407-1413.
43.	Geddes CC, McManus SK, Koteeswaran S, Baxter GM. Long-term outcome of transplant renal artery stenosis managed conservatively or by radiological intervention. Clin Transplant 2008; 22(5):572-578.
44.	Ghazanfar A, Tavakoli A, Augustine T, Pararajasingam R, Riad H, Chalmers N. Management of transplant renal artery stenosis and its impact on long-term allograft survival: a single-centre experience. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011; 26(1):336-343.
45.	Hagen G, Wadstrom J, Magnusson M, Magnusson A. Outcome after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of arterial stenosis in renal transplant patients. Acta Radiol. 2009; 50(3):270-275.
46.	Henning BF, Kuchlbauer S, Boger CA, et al. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty as first-line treatment of transplant renal artery stenosis. Clin Nephrol. 2009; 71(5):543-549.
47.	Pappas P, Zavos G, Kaza S, et al. Angioplasty and stenting of arterial stenosis affecting renal transplant function. Transplant Proc. 2008; 40(5):1391-1396.
48.	Peregrin JH, Stribrna J, Lacha J, Skibova J. Long-term follow-up of renal transplant patients with renal artery stenosis treated by percutaneous angioplasty. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 66(3):512-518.
49.	Polak WG, Jezior D, Garcarek J, et al. Incidence and outcome of transplant renal artery stenosis: single center experience. Transplant Proc. 2006; 38(1):131-132.
50.	Seratnahaei A, Shah A, Bodiwala K, Mukherjee D. Management of transplant renal artery stenosis. Angiology. 2011; 62(3):219-224.
51.	Valpreda S, Messina M, Rabbia C. Stenting of transplant renal artery stenosis: outcome in a single center study. J Cardiovasc Surg. (Torino) 2008; 49(5):565-570.
52.	Voiculescu A, Schmitz M, Hollenbeck M, et al. Management of arterial stenosis affecting kidney graft perfusion: a single-centre study in 53 patients. Am J Transplant. 2005; 5(7):1731-1738.
53.	Laberge JM. Interventional management of renal transplant arteriovenous fistula. Semin Intervent Radiol 2004;21:239-46.
54.	Nicolini A, Ferraresso M, Lovaria A, Biondetti P, Raiteri M, Berardinelli L. Carbon dioxide as a valuable contrast agent for identifying iatrogenic arteriovenous fistulas in transplanted kidneys. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003;18:2189-92.
55.	Rountas C, Vlychou M, Vassiou K, et al. Imaging modalities for renal artery stenosis in suspected renovascular hypertension: prospective intraindividual comparison of color Doppler US, CT angiography, GD-enhanced MR angiography, and digital substraction angiography. Ren Fail. 2007; 29(3):295-302.
56.	Helck A, Bamberg F, Sommer WH, et al. Optimized contrast volume for dynamic CT angiography in renal transplant patients using a multiphase CT protocol. Eur J Radiol. 2010 [Epub ahead of print].
57.	Gaddikeri S, Mitsumori L, Vaidya S, Hippe DS, Bhargava P, Dighe MK. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic angiography and gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of hemodynamically significant transplant renal artery stenosis. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2014;43:162-8.
58.	Mousa D, Hamilton D, Miola UJ, et al. The importance of the perfusion index in the evaluation of captopril renography for transplant renal artery stenosis. Nucl Med Commun 1994;15:949-52.
59.	Erbas B. Peri- and Postsurgical Evaluations of Renal Transplant. [Review]. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. 47(6):647-659, 2017 11.Semin Nucl Med. 47(6):647-659, 2017 11.
60.	Omary RA, Baden JG, Becker BN, Odorico JS, Grist TM. Impact of MR angiography on the diagnosis and management of renal transplant dysfunction. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000; 11(8):991-996.
61.	Sharafuddin MJ, Stolpen AH, Dixon BS, Andresen KJ, Sun S, Lawton WJ. Value of MR angiography before percutaneous transluminal renal artery angioplasty and stent placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol.2002; 13(9 Pt 1):901-908.
62.	Neimatallah MA, Dong Q, Schoenberg SO, Cho KJ, Prince MR. Magnetic resonance imaging in renal transplantation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 10(3):357-368.
63.	Ismaeel MM, Abdel-Hamid A. Role of high resolution contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (HR CeMRA) in management of arterial complications of the renal transplant. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 79(2):e122-127.
64.	Liu X, Berg N, Sheehan J, et al. Renal transplant: nonenhanced renal MR angiography with magnetization-prepared steady-state free precession. Radiology. 2009; 251(2):535-542.
65.	Lanzman RS, Voiculescu A, Walther C, et al. ECG-gated nonenhanced 3D steady-state free precession MR angiography in assessment of transplant renal arteries: comparison with DSA. Radiology 2009;252:914-21.
66.	Bultman EM, Klaers J, Johnson KM, et al. Non-contrast enhanced 3D SSFP MRA of the renal allograft vasculature: a comparison between radial linear combination and Cartesian inflow-weighted acquisitions. Magn Reson Imaging. 32(2):190-5, 2014 Feb.
67.	Tang H, Wang Z, Wang L, et al. Depiction of transplant renal vascular anatomy and complications: unenhanced MR angiography by using spatial labeling with multiple inversion pulses. Radiology. 271(3):879-87, 2014 Jun.
68.	Zhang LJ, Peng J, Wen J, et al. Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: a reliable clinical tool for evaluating transplant renal artery stenosis. Eur Radiol. 28(10):4195-4204, 2018 Oct.
69.	Pan FS, Liu M, Luo J, et al. Transplant renal artery stenosis: Evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. European Journal of Radiology. 90:42-49, 2017 May.
70.	Advances in Biomedical Alcohol Research. Proceedings of the 5th ISBRA/RSA Congress. Toronto, Canada, 17-22 June 1990. Alcohol Alcohol Suppl 1991;1:1-534.
71.	Kim HS, Fine DM, Atta MG. Catheter-directed thrombectomy and thrombolysis for acute renal vein thrombosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;17:815-22.
72.	Sciascia N, Zompatori M, Di Scioscio V, et al. Multidetector CT-urography in the study of urological complications in renal transplant. Radiol Med 2002;103:501-10.
73.	Cohnen M, Brause M, May P, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR urography in the evaluation of renal transplants with urological complications. Clin Nephrol. 58(2):111-7, 2002 Aug.
74.	Blondin D, Koester A, Andersen K, Kurz KD, Moedder U, Cohnen M. Renal transplant failure due to urologic complications: Comparison of static fluid with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance urography. Eur J Radiol 2009;69:324-30.
75.	Grzelak P, Kurnatowska I, Nowicki M, et al. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the assessment of perirenal hematomas in the early post-operative period after kidney transplantation. Clin Transplant. 27(6):E619-24, 2013 Nov-Dec.
76.	Williams WW, Taheri D, Tolkoff-Rubin N, Colvin RB. Clinical role of the renal transplant biopsy. Nat Rev Nephrol 2012;8:110-21.
77.	Pascual M, Vallhonrat H, Cosimi AB, et al. The clinical usefulness of the renal allograft biopsy in the cyclosporine era: a prospective study. Transplantation 1999;67:737-41.
78.	Schwarz A, Gwinner W, Hiss M, Radermacher J, Mengel M, Haller H. Safety and adequacy of renal transplant protocol biopsies. Am J Transplant 2005;5:1992-6.
79.	Furness PN, Philpott CM, Chorbadjian MT, et al. Protocol biopsy of the stable renal transplant: a multicenter study of methods and complication rates. Transplantation. 2003; 76(6):969-973.
80.	Benozzi L, Cappelli G, Granito M, et al. Contrast-enhanced sonography in early kidney graft dysfunction. Transplant Proc 2009;41:1214-5.
81.	Goyal A, Hemachandran N, Kumar A, et al. Evaluation of the Graft Kidney in the Early Postoperative Period: Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Additional Ultrasound Parameters. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 40(9):1771-1783, 2021 Sep.
82.	Zhou Q, Yu Y, Qin W, et al. Current Status of Ultrasound in Acute Rejection After Renal Transplantation: A Review with a Focus on Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound. [Review]. Annals of Transplantation. 26:e929729, 2021 May 04.
83.	Fontanilla T, Minaya J, Cortes C, et al. Acute complicated pyelonephritis: contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37(4):639-646.
84.	Mueller-Peltzer K, Rubenthaler J, Fischereder M, Habicht A, Reiser M, Clevert DA. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as a new technique for imaging of vascular complications in renal transplants compared to standard imaging modalities. Clinical Hemorheology & Microcirculation. 67(3-4):407-413, 2017.
85.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
86.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.