Literature DB >> 27747454

Non-invasive imaging cannot replace formal angiography in the diagnosis of renovascular hypertension.

Agnes Trautmann1,2, Derek J Roebuck3, Clare A McLaren3, Eileen Brennan1, Stephen D Marks1, Kjell Tullus4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Renovascular disease (RVD) is found in about 10 % of secondary childhood hypertension. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) is the gold standard to diagnose RVD. Non-invasive imaging methods like Doppler ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and computed tomography angiography (CTA) are increasingly used. Our aim was to evaluate the role and accuracy of US, MRA, and CTA compared to DSA in diagnosing RVD in children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 127 children with suspected renovascular hypertension was performed in children referred to Great Ormond Street Hospital between 2006 and 2014 due to clinical suspicion of renovascular hypertension and/or findings on US and/or MRA or CTA.
RESULTS: Ninety-nine of 127 children (78 %) were diagnosed with renovascular disease and 80 were treated with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty during the same procedure. The median age at presentation was 5.6 (range, 2.5-10.6) years. Thirty-six children had unilateral renal artery stenosis in major extraparenchymal vessels, 47 bilateral stenosis and 16 intrarenal small vessel disease. US had a sensitivity of 63 % and specificity of 95 %. MRA and CTA were performed in 39 and 34 children, respectively. CTA sensitivity was slightly higher than that of MRA, 88 vs. 80 %, and specificity 81 vs. 63 %.
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of MRA and CTA is still too low to reliably rule out renovascular disease in children with a strong suspicion of this diagnosis. DSA remains the gold standard to diagnose renovascular hypertension and is recommended when clinical and laboratory criteria are highly suggestive of renovascular disease even with normal radiological investigations from non-invasive methods.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computed tomography angiography; Digital subtraction angiography; Doppler ultrasound; Magnetic resonance angiography; Renal artery stenosis; Renovascular hypertension

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27747454     DOI: 10.1007/s00467-016-3501-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol        ISSN: 0931-041X            Impact factor:   3.714


  33 in total

1.  Doppler ultrasound scanning in the detection of renal artery stenosis in hypertensive patients.

Authors:  C T Postma; J van Aalen; T de Boo; G Rosenbusch; T Thien
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Anatomic distribution of renal artery stenosis in children: implications for imaging.

Authors:  Nghia J Vo; Ben D Hammelman; Judy M Racadio; C Frederic Strife; Neil D Johnson; John M Racadio
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2006-07-04

3.  Value of Doppler ultrasound for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis in children.

Authors:  P Brun; H Kchouk; B Mouchet; V Baudouin; A Raynaud; C Loirat; A Azancot-Benisty
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.714

4.  Evaluation of renal artery stenosis with velocity parameters of Doppler sonography.

Authors:  Jian-Chu Li; Lei Wang; Yu-Xin Jiang; Qing Dai; Sheng Cai; Ke Lv; Zhen-Hong Qi
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.153

5.  The role of CT angiography in the evaluation of pediatric renovascular hypertension.

Authors:  Jessica Kurian; Monica Epelman; Kassa Darge; Kevin Meyers; Els Nijs; Jeffrey C Hellinger
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2012-12-04

6.  A prospective comparison of duplex ultrasonography, captopril renography, MRA, and CTA in assessing renal artery stenosis.

Authors:  H Eklöf; H Ahlström; A Magnusson; L-G Andersson; B Andrén; A Hägg; D Bergqvist; R Nyman
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.990

7.  Renal Doppler evaluation in the child with hypertension: a reasonable screening discriminator?

Authors:  Sumit Chhadia; Richard A Cohn; Gulsah Vural; James S Donaldson
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2013-07-17

Review 8.  Renovascular hypertension in children.

Authors:  Kjell Tullus; Eileen Brennan; George Hamilton; Rozanne Lord; Clare A McLaren; Stephen D Marks; Derek J Roebuck
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-04-26       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Renovascular hypertension in children: curability predicted with negative intrarenal Doppler US results.

Authors:  L Garel; J Dubois; P Robitaille; P Russo; D Filiatrault; A Grignon; J Dubé
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  A single pediatric center experience with 1025 children with hypertension.

Authors:  T Wyszyńska; E Cichocka; A Wieteska-Klimczak; K Jobs; P Januszewicz
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.299

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Ultrasound imaging of renin-mediated hypertension.

Authors:  Jonathan R Dillman; Ethan A Smith; Brian D Coley
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-08-04

2.  Renal artery assessment with non-enhanced MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography: comparison between 1.5 and 3.0 T.

Authors:  Xiaoxia Guo; Ying Gong; Zhiyuan Wu; Fuhua Yan; Xiaoyi Ding; Xueqin Xu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Imaging studies in pediatric fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD): a single-center experience.

Authors:  Robert Louis; Daniella Levy-Erez; Anne Marie Cahill; Kevin E Meyers
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.714

Review 4.  Renovascular hypertension in pediatric patients: update on diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Juliana Lacerda de Oliveira Campos; Letícia Bitencourt; Ana Luisa Pedrosa; Diego Ferreira Silva; Filipe Ji Jen Lin; Lucas Teixeira de Oliveira Dias; Ana Cristina Simões E Silva
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 3.714

5.  Presentation, treatment, and outcome of renovascular hypertension below 2 years of age.

Authors:  Eda Didem Kurt-Sukur; Eileen Brennan; Meryl Davis; Colin Forman; George Hamilton; Nicos Kessaris; Stephen D Marks; Clare A McLaren; Kishore Minhas; Premal A Patel; Derek J Roebuck; Jelena Stojanovic; Sam Stuart; Kjell Tullus
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.860

6.  Difference between renal and splenic resistive index as a novel criterion in Doppler evaluation of renal artery stenosis.

Authors:  Clemens Grupp; Michael J Koziolek; Manuel Wallbach; Kerstin Hoxhold; Gerhard A Müller; Carsten Bramlage
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  Validation of computed tomography angiography as a complementary test in the assessment of renal artery stenosis: a comparison with digital subtraction angiography.

Authors:  Anilawan S Fleury; Rachelle E Durand; Anne Marie Cahill; Xiaowei Zhu; Kevin E Meyers; Hansel J Otero
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2021-08-10

8.  The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound versus Doppler Ultrasound in Grading Renal Artery Stenosis.

Authors:  Yanhua Cui; Quanbin Zhang; Jiping Yan; Ji Wu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 3.411

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.