Cargando…

Ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: Stenosis criteria, CEUS and recurrent in-stent stenosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As a non-invasive, side effect-free and cost-effective method, ultrasonography represents the method of choice for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Four different criteria in total, including two direct criteria in peak systolic velocity (PSV) and renal aortic ratio (R...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schäberle, W., Leyerer, L., Schierling, W., Pfister, K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4767855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27034579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00772-015-0060-3
_version_ 1782417859111026688
author Schäberle, W.
Leyerer, L.
Schierling, W.
Pfister, K.
author_facet Schäberle, W.
Leyerer, L.
Schierling, W.
Pfister, K.
author_sort Schäberle, W.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As a non-invasive, side effect-free and cost-effective method, ultrasonography represents the method of choice for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Four different criteria in total, including two direct criteria in peak systolic velocity (PSV) and renal aortic ratio (RAR) and two indirect criteria in resistance index (RI) and acceleration time (AT) for the measurement of relevant renal artery stenosis are described, each demonstrating highly variable accuracy in studies. Furthermore, there is controversy over the degree beyond which stenosis becomes therapeutically relevant and which ultrasound PSV is diagnostically relevant in terms of stenosis grading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This article gives a critical review based on a selective literature search on measurement methodology and the validity of ultrasound in renal artery stenosis. A critical evaluation of methods and a presentation of measurement principles to establish the most precise measurement method possible compared with the gold standard angiography, as well as an evaluation of the importance of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The PSV provides high sensitivity and specificity as a direct measurement method in stenosis detection and grading. Most studies found sensitivities and specificities of 85–90 % for > 50 % stenosis at a PSV > 180–200 cm/s in ROC curve analysis. Other methods, such as the ratio of the PSV in the aorta to the PSV in the renal artery (RAR) or indirect criteria, such as side to side differences in RI (dRI) or AT can be additionally used to improve accuracy. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound improves accuracy by means of echo contrast enhancement. Although in the past only high-grade stenosis was considered relevant for treatment, a drop in pressure of > 20 mmHg in > 50 % stenosis (PSV 180 cm/s) is classified as relevant for increased renin secretion. Stenosis in fibromuscular dysplasia can be reliably graded according to the continuity equation. Although the available studies on the grading of in-stent restenosis are the subject of controversy, there is a tendency to assume higher cut-off values for PSV and RAR. Whilst MRA and CTA demonstrate an accuracy of > 90 %, this is at the cost of possible side effects for patients, particularly in the case of pre-existing renal parenchymal damage. ADDITIONAL ONLINE MATERIAL: This article includes two additional video sequences on visualizing renal artery stenosis. This supplemental material can be found under: dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00772-015-0060-3
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4767855
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47678552016-03-29 Ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: Stenosis criteria, CEUS and recurrent in-stent stenosis Schäberle, W. Leyerer, L. Schierling, W. Pfister, K. Gefasschirurgie Leitthema BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As a non-invasive, side effect-free and cost-effective method, ultrasonography represents the method of choice for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Four different criteria in total, including two direct criteria in peak systolic velocity (PSV) and renal aortic ratio (RAR) and two indirect criteria in resistance index (RI) and acceleration time (AT) for the measurement of relevant renal artery stenosis are described, each demonstrating highly variable accuracy in studies. Furthermore, there is controversy over the degree beyond which stenosis becomes therapeutically relevant and which ultrasound PSV is diagnostically relevant in terms of stenosis grading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This article gives a critical review based on a selective literature search on measurement methodology and the validity of ultrasound in renal artery stenosis. A critical evaluation of methods and a presentation of measurement principles to establish the most precise measurement method possible compared with the gold standard angiography, as well as an evaluation of the importance of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The PSV provides high sensitivity and specificity as a direct measurement method in stenosis detection and grading. Most studies found sensitivities and specificities of 85–90 % for > 50 % stenosis at a PSV > 180–200 cm/s in ROC curve analysis. Other methods, such as the ratio of the PSV in the aorta to the PSV in the renal artery (RAR) or indirect criteria, such as side to side differences in RI (dRI) or AT can be additionally used to improve accuracy. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound improves accuracy by means of echo contrast enhancement. Although in the past only high-grade stenosis was considered relevant for treatment, a drop in pressure of > 20 mmHg in > 50 % stenosis (PSV 180 cm/s) is classified as relevant for increased renin secretion. Stenosis in fibromuscular dysplasia can be reliably graded according to the continuity equation. Although the available studies on the grading of in-stent restenosis are the subject of controversy, there is a tendency to assume higher cut-off values for PSV and RAR. Whilst MRA and CTA demonstrate an accuracy of > 90 %, this is at the cost of possible side effects for patients, particularly in the case of pre-existing renal parenchymal damage. ADDITIONAL ONLINE MATERIAL: This article includes two additional video sequences on visualizing renal artery stenosis. This supplemental material can be found under: dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00772-015-0060-3 Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-08-28 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4767855/ /pubmed/27034579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00772-015-0060-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Leitthema
Schäberle, W.
Leyerer, L.
Schierling, W.
Pfister, K.
Ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: Stenosis criteria, CEUS and recurrent in-stent stenosis
title Ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: Stenosis criteria, CEUS and recurrent in-stent stenosis
title_full Ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: Stenosis criteria, CEUS and recurrent in-stent stenosis
title_fullStr Ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: Stenosis criteria, CEUS and recurrent in-stent stenosis
title_full_unstemmed Ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: Stenosis criteria, CEUS and recurrent in-stent stenosis
title_short Ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: Stenosis criteria, CEUS and recurrent in-stent stenosis
title_sort ultrasound diagnostics of renal artery stenosis: stenosis criteria, ceus and recurrent in-stent stenosis
topic Leitthema
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4767855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27034579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00772-015-0060-3
work_keys_str_mv AT schaberlew ultrasounddiagnosticsofrenalarterystenosisstenosiscriteriaceusandrecurrentinstentstenosis
AT leyererl ultrasounddiagnosticsofrenalarterystenosisstenosiscriteriaceusandrecurrentinstentstenosis
AT schierlingw ultrasounddiagnosticsofrenalarterystenosisstenosiscriteriaceusandrecurrentinstentstenosis
AT pfisterk ultrasounddiagnosticsofrenalarterystenosisstenosiscriteriaceusandrecurrentinstentstenosis