4.7 Article

Renal artery stenosis: comparative assessment by unenhanced renal artery mra versus contrast-enhanced MRA

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages 1470-1476

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2086-6

Keywords

Renal artery stenosis; Magnetic resonance angiography; Renal MRA; Non-contrast MRA; Steady-state free precession

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate steady-state free precession (SSFP) non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography (Unenhanced-MRA) versus conventional contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) in the detection of renal artery stenosis (RAS). Retrospective analysis of 70 consecutive patients referred for suspected RAS, examined by SSFP Unenhanced-MRA and CE-MRA. Image quality, quality of visible renal arterial segments, presence and grade of RAS were evaluated. The Unenhanced-MRA were compared against reference standard CE-MRA results. 149 renal arteries were assessed with 21 haemodynamically significant stenoses (a parts per thousand yen50% stenosis) demonstrated by CE-MRA. Combined sensitivity and specificity for RAS detection by Unenhanced-MRA was 72.8% and 97.8% respectively. There is substantial correlation for RAS detection between Unenhanced-MRA and CE-MRA with kappa values of between 0.64 and 0.74. There was excellent inter-observer correlation for RAS on Unenhanced-MRA (kappa values 0.82-1.0). Our study has shown Unenhanced-MRA to be a viable alternative to CE-MRA, yielding images equal in quality without the requirement for gadolinium contrast agents. The sensitivity and specificity for the detection of haemodynamically significant stenoses are comparable to CE-MRA. Potentially, Unenhanced-MRA could be used as an initial investigation to avoid performing CE-MRA in patients with normal renal arteries, however we suggest that its real value will lie in being complementary to CE-MRA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available