Literature DB >> 23338955

How to distinguish between inconsistencies in CTA results and DSA findings: interobserver variability cannot be ignored.

K Liu1, J Chen, Y Peng, S He, X Chen.   

Abstract

Renovascular hypertension (RVH) is a common cause of secondary hypertension. Noninvasive tests such as computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography have a high specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) is, however, the gold standard with which RVH can be reliably diagnosed. We report the case of a 30-year-old Chinese man with right ureter malformation and stenosis of the entire right renal artery. We discuss how to distinguish between inconsistencies in CTA results and DSA findings. Interobserver variability is an important factor that leads to such inconsistencies and cannot be ignored. Importantly, clinicians should combine imaging findings with the patient's medical history and clinical manifestations rather than blindly believing the DSA results so as to avoid unnecessary medical disputes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23338955     DOI: 10.1007/s00059-012-3723-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Herz        ISSN: 0340-9937            Impact factor:   1.443


  10 in total

Review 1.  Renal-artery stenosis.

Authors:  R D Safian; S C Textor
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-02-08       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Renovascular hypertension: screening and modern management.

Authors:  Iris Baumgartner; Lilach O Lerman
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 29.983

3.  The CARI guidelines. Screening tests for diagnosis of renal artery stenosis.

Authors:  Murty Mantha; Subramanian Karthik Kumar; Robert MacGinley; Peter Mount; Matthew Roberts; George Mangos
Journal:  Nephrology (Carlton)       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Renal artery imaging: a prospective comparison of intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography with conventional angiography.

Authors:  D Kim; D H Porter; R Brown; M S Crivello; P Silva; B W Leeming
Journal:  Angiology       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 3.619

5.  Renal artery stenosis: detection and quantification with spiral CT angiography versus optimized digital subtraction angiography.

Authors:  R Kaatee; F J Beek; E E de Lange; M S van Leeuwen; H F Smits; P J van der Ven; J J Beutler; W P Mali
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Ultrasound as a first line screening tool for the detection of renal artery stenosis: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Themistoklis N Spyridopoulos; Katerina Kaziani; Alexia P Balanika; Mariana Kalokairinou-Motogna; Vasiliki Bizimi; Iovana Paianidi; Christos S Baltas
Journal:  Med Ultrason       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.611

7.  Interobserver variability in the interpretation of renal digital subtraction angiography.

Authors:  J F Paul; I Cherrak; M C Jaulent; G Chatellier; P F Plouin; P Degoulet; J C Gaux
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Minimally invasive diagnosis of renal artery stenosis by spiral computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  C J Olbricht; K Paul; M Prokop; A Chavan; C M Schaefer-Prokop; K Jandeleit; K M Koch; M Galanski
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 10.612

Review 9.  Renovascular hypertension and ischemic nephropathy.

Authors:  Stephen C Textor; Lilach Lerman
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 2.689

10.  Assessment of renal artery stenosis severity by pressure gradient measurements.

Authors:  Bernard De Bruyne; Ganesh Manoharan; Nico H J Pijls; Katia Verhamme; Juraj Madaric; Jozef Bartunek; Marc Vanderheyden; Guy R Heyndrickx
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2006-10-17       Impact factor: 24.094

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.