OBJECTIVES: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 149 renal arteries were assessed with 21 haemodynamically significant stenoses (≥ 50% 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 149 renal arteries were assessed with 21 haemodynamically significant stenoses (≥ 50% 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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: James F Glockner; Naoki Takahashi; Akira Kawashima; David A Woodrum; David W Stanley; Naoyuki Takei; Mitsuharu Miyoshi; Wei Sun Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jeffrey H Maki; Gregory J Wilson; William B Eubank; David J Glickerman; Juan A Millan; Romhild M Hoogeveen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M R Prince; D L Narasimham; J C Stanley; T L Chenevert; D M Williams; M V Marx; K J Cho Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: F De Cobelli; M Venturini; A Vanzulli; S Sironi; M Salvioni; E Angeli; P Scifo; M P Garancini; R Quartagno; G Bianchi; A Del Maschio Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rolf Wyttenbach; Antonio Braghetti; Michael Wyss; Mario Alerci; Lukas Briner; Paolo Santini; Luca Cozzi; Marcello Di Valentino; Marcus Katoh; Claudio Marone; Peter Vock; Augusto Gallino Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christoph U Herborn; David M Watkins; Val M Runge; Jilene M Gendron; Mark L Montgomery; L Gill Naul Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-02-21 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Carmen Sebastià; Alejandro D Sotomayor; Blanca Paño; Rafael Salvador; Marta Burrel; Albert Botey; Carlos Nicolau Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2016-08-04