PURPOSE: To evaluate noncontrast material-enhanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) magnetic resonance (MR) angiography in the assessment of transplant renal arteries (RAs) by using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board; written informed consent was obtained from all participants. In 20 renal allograft recipients scheduled for DSA, the transplant RAs were assessed with electrocardiographically gated nonenhanced SSFP MR angiography performed at 1.5 T; the degree of stenosis was compared with that of DSA. Subjective image quality for SSFP MR angiography was assessed independently by two radiologists on a four-point scale (from 1, nondiagnostic to 4, excellent) in four predefined segments (I, the iliac artery; II, the main transplant artery; III, segmental branches; and IV, parenchymal branches). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of SSFP MR angiography for the detection of relevant (> or =50%) transplant RA stenosis (TRAS) were calculated on a per-artery basis. RESULTS: One patient was excluded because SSFP MR angiography failed to adequately visualize the allograft vasculature owing to low cardiac output. The mean image quality assessed by both readers was 3.98 +/- 0.16 (standard deviation), 3.5 +/- 0.68, 2.71 +/- 1.12 and 2.03 +/- 1.09 for segments I, II, III, and IV, respectively (kappa = 0.80). DSA helped identify eight relevant (> or =50%) stenoses in six transplant RAs. Kinking of the transplant artery without relevant stenosis was found in seven patients. The degree of stenosis was overestimated in three patients by using SSFP MR angiography. As compared with DSA, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of SSFP MR angiography to help detect relevant TRAS were 100% (six of six), 88% (14 of 16), and 91% (20 of 22), respectively. CONCLUSION: Nonenhanced SSFP MR angiography is a reliable alternative imaging technique for the assessment of transplant RAs in patients for whom contrast-enhanced MR angiography is contraindicated.
PURPOSE: To evaluate noncontrast material-enhanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) magnetic resonance (MR) angiography in the assessment of transplant renal arteries (RAs) by using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board; written informed consent was obtained from all participants. In 20 renal allograft recipients scheduled for DSA, the transplant RAs were assessed with electrocardiographically gated nonenhanced SSFP MR angiography performed at 1.5 T; the degree of stenosis was compared with that of DSA. Subjective image quality for SSFP MR angiography was assessed independently by two radiologists on a four-point scale (from 1, nondiagnostic to 4, excellent) in four predefined segments (I, the iliac artery; II, the main transplant artery; III, segmental branches; and IV, parenchymal branches). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of SSFP MR angiography for the detection of relevant (> or =50%) transplant RA stenosis (TRAS) were calculated on a per-artery basis. RESULTS: One patient was excluded because SSFP MR angiography failed to adequately visualize the allograft vasculature owing to low cardiac output. The mean image quality assessed by both readers was 3.98 +/- 0.16 (standard deviation), 3.5 +/- 0.68, 2.71 +/- 1.12 and 2.03 +/- 1.09 for segments I, II, III, and IV, respectively (kappa = 0.80). DSA helped identify eight relevant (> or =50%) stenoses in six transplant RAs. Kinking of the transplant artery without relevant stenosis was found in seven patients. The degree of stenosis was overestimated in three patients by using SSFP MR angiography. As compared with DSA, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of SSFP MR angiography to help detect relevant TRAS were 100% (six of six), 88% (14 of 16), and 91% (20 of 22), respectively. CONCLUSION: Nonenhanced SSFP MR angiography is a reliable alternative imaging technique for the assessment of transplant RAs in patients for whom contrast-enhanced MR angiography is contraindicated.
Authors: I Laurence; B Ariff; R A Quest; S Moser; A Glover; D Taube; P Gishen; V Papalois; C Juli Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Milan Hora; Petr Stránský; Ivan Trávníček; Tomáš Urge; Viktor Eret; Boris Kreuzberg; Jan Baxa; Hynek Mírka; Fredrik Petersson; Ondřej Hes; Jiří Ferda Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: T A Bley; C J François; M L Schiebler; O Wieben; N Takei; J H Brittain; A Munoz Del Rio; T M Grist; S B Reeder Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Iliyana P Atanasova; Ruth P Lim; Hersh Chandarana; Pippa Storey; Mary T Bruno; Daniel Kim; Vivian S Lee Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 3.528