Cargando…

Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography (U-MRA) using balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequences with inversion recovery (IR) pulses for the evaluation of renal artery stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: U-MRA was performed in 24 patients with suspecte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sebastià, Carmen, Sotomayor, Alejandro D., Paño, Blanca, Salvador, Rafael, Burrel, Marta, Botey, Albert, Nicolau, Carlos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975703/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27536710
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2016.07.003
_version_ 1782446755334324224
author Sebastià, Carmen
Sotomayor, Alejandro D.
Paño, Blanca
Salvador, Rafael
Burrel, Marta
Botey, Albert
Nicolau, Carlos
author_facet Sebastià, Carmen
Sotomayor, Alejandro D.
Paño, Blanca
Salvador, Rafael
Burrel, Marta
Botey, Albert
Nicolau, Carlos
author_sort Sebastià, Carmen
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography (U-MRA) using balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequences with inversion recovery (IR) pulses for the evaluation of renal artery stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: U-MRA was performed in 24 patients with suspected main renal artery stenosis. Two radiologists evaluated the quality of the imaging studies and the ability of U-MRA to identify hemodynamically significant main renal artery stenosis (RAS) defined as a stenosis ≥50% when compared to gold standard tests: contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) (18 patients) or digital subtraction arteriography (DSA) (6 patients). RESULTS: A total of 44 main renal arteries were evaluated. Of them, 32 renal arteries could be assessed with U-MRA. When CE-MRA or DSA was used as the reference standard, nine renal arteries had hemodynamically significant RAS. U-MRA correctly identified eight out of nine arteries as having ≥50% RAS, and correctly identified 22 out of 23 arteries as not having significant RAS, with a sensitivity of 88.8%, a specificity of 95.65%, positive and negative predictive value of 88.8% and 95.65%, respectively, and an accuracy of 93.75%. Renal artery fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) was observed in the two misclassified arteries. CONCLUSION: U-MRA is a reliable diagnostic method to depict normal and stenotic main renal arteries. U-MRA can be used as an alternative to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography or computer tomography angiography in patients with renal insufficiency unless FMD is suspected.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4975703
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49757032016-08-17 Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis Sebastià, Carmen Sotomayor, Alejandro D. Paño, Blanca Salvador, Rafael Burrel, Marta Botey, Albert Nicolau, Carlos Eur J Radiol Open Article PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography (U-MRA) using balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequences with inversion recovery (IR) pulses for the evaluation of renal artery stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: U-MRA was performed in 24 patients with suspected main renal artery stenosis. Two radiologists evaluated the quality of the imaging studies and the ability of U-MRA to identify hemodynamically significant main renal artery stenosis (RAS) defined as a stenosis ≥50% when compared to gold standard tests: contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) (18 patients) or digital subtraction arteriography (DSA) (6 patients). RESULTS: A total of 44 main renal arteries were evaluated. Of them, 32 renal arteries could be assessed with U-MRA. When CE-MRA or DSA was used as the reference standard, nine renal arteries had hemodynamically significant RAS. U-MRA correctly identified eight out of nine arteries as having ≥50% RAS, and correctly identified 22 out of 23 arteries as not having significant RAS, with a sensitivity of 88.8%, a specificity of 95.65%, positive and negative predictive value of 88.8% and 95.65%, respectively, and an accuracy of 93.75%. Renal artery fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) was observed in the two misclassified arteries. CONCLUSION: U-MRA is a reliable diagnostic method to depict normal and stenotic main renal arteries. U-MRA can be used as an alternative to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography or computer tomography angiography in patients with renal insufficiency unless FMD is suspected. Elsevier 2016-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4975703/ /pubmed/27536710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2016.07.003 Text en © 2016 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Sebastià, Carmen
Sotomayor, Alejandro D.
Paño, Blanca
Salvador, Rafael
Burrel, Marta
Botey, Albert
Nicolau, Carlos
Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis
title Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis
title_full Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis
title_fullStr Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis
title_short Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis
title_sort accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975703/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27536710
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2016.07.003
work_keys_str_mv AT sebastiacarmen accuracyofunenhancedmagneticresonanceangiographyfortheassessmentofrenalarterystenosis
AT sotomayoralejandrod accuracyofunenhancedmagneticresonanceangiographyfortheassessmentofrenalarterystenosis
AT panoblanca accuracyofunenhancedmagneticresonanceangiographyfortheassessmentofrenalarterystenosis
AT salvadorrafael accuracyofunenhancedmagneticresonanceangiographyfortheassessmentofrenalarterystenosis
AT burrelmarta accuracyofunenhancedmagneticresonanceangiographyfortheassessmentofrenalarterystenosis
AT boteyalbert accuracyofunenhancedmagneticresonanceangiographyfortheassessmentofrenalarterystenosis
AT nicolaucarlos accuracyofunenhancedmagneticresonanceangiographyfortheassessmentofrenalarterystenosis