Hira Lal1, Rani Kunti Randhir Singh1, Priyank Yadav2, Ankusha Yadav1, Dharmendra Bhadauria3, Anuradha Singh4. 1. Department of Radiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Raibareli Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226014, India. 2. Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Raibareli Road, Lucknow, 226014, India. 3. Department of Nephrology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Raibareli Road, Lucknow, 226014, India. 4. Department of Radiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Raibareli Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226014, India. anuradha.lhmc@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, we compared non-contrast MR angiography (NC-MRA) with conventional 3D contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) in patients suspected to have renal artery stenosis (RAS). METHODS: From March 2014 to March 2020, patients who were evaluated for RAS and had a glomerular filtration rate > 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 underwent MR imaging on a 3T MR Scanner (Signa Hdxt General Electrics, Milwaukee, USA) using a Torso PA coil. The NC-MRA sequence was performed using a 3D fat-suppressed inflow inversion recovery balanced steady state free precession (SSFP) sequence (Inhance 3D Inflow IR, GE Medical) whereas the CE-MRA sequence was a 3D fast spoiled gradient echo (FSPGR). Overall quality of images was rated 1 to 4. Stenosis was reported as grade 1 (Normal), 2 (< 50% narrowing), 3 (> 50% narrowing) and 4 (Total occlusion). Grade 3 and 4 were considered haemodynamically significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 201 patients were enrolled (400 renal arteries). For hemodynamically significant (grade 3/4) stenosis, NC-MRA correctly diagnosed 72 patients (95 arteries) while in 2 patients (2 arteries), NC-MRA underdiagnosed the stenosis as grade 2 (these were found to have grade 3 stenosis on CE-MRA). The kappa value of agreement between NC-MRA and CE-MRA for detection of RAS showing excellent agreement (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In one of the largest series of patients so far, we found that NC-MRA is a viable alternative to CE-MRA for detection of RAS, highly correlating with CE-MRA for grade of stenosis and with additional advantage of lack of gadolinium based contrast agents toxicity.
PURPOSE: In this study, we compared non-contrast MR angiography (NC-MRA) with conventional 3D contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) in patients suspected to have renal artery stenosis (RAS). METHODS: From March 2014 to March 2020, patients who were evaluated for RAS and had a glomerular filtration rate > 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 underwent MR imaging on a 3T MR Scanner (Signa Hdxt General Electrics, Milwaukee, USA) using a Torso PA coil. The NC-MRA sequence was performed using a 3D fat-suppressed inflow inversion recovery balanced steady state free precession (SSFP) sequence (Inhance 3D Inflow IR, GE Medical) whereas the CE-MRA sequence was a 3D fast spoiled gradient echo (FSPGR). Overall quality of images was rated 1 to 4. Stenosis was reported as grade 1 (Normal), 2 (< 50% narrowing), 3 (> 50% narrowing) and 4 (Total occlusion). Grade 3 and 4 were considered haemodynamically significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 201 patients were enrolled (400 renal arteries). For hemodynamically significant (grade 3/4) stenosis, NC-MRA correctly diagnosed 72 patients (95 arteries) while in 2 patients (2 arteries), NC-MRA underdiagnosed the stenosis as grade 2 (these were found to have grade 3 stenosis on CE-MRA). The kappa value of agreement between NC-MRA and CE-MRA for detection of RAS showing excellent agreement (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In one of the largest series of patients so far, we found that NC-MRA is a viable alternative to CE-MRA for detection of RAS, highly correlating with CE-MRA for grade of stenosis and with additional advantage of lack of gadolinium based contrast agents toxicity.
Authors: Elmar Spuentrup; Warren J Manning; Peter Börnert; Kraig V Kissinger; René M Botnar; Matthias Stuber Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Michal Tendera; Victor Aboyans; Marie-Louise Bartelink; Iris Baumgartner; Denis Clément; Jean-Philippe Collet; Alberto Cremonesi; Marco De Carlo; Raimund Erbel; F Gerry R Fowkes; Magda Heras; Serge Kownator; Erich Minar; Jan Ostergren; Don Poldermans; Vincent Riambau; Marco Roffi; Joachim Röther; Horst Sievert; Marc van Sambeek; Thomas Zeller Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Michael Riccabona; Fred Efraim Avni; Maria Beatrice Damasio; Lil-Sofie Ording-Müller; Johan G Blickman; Kassa Darge; Maria Luisa Lobo; Frederica Papadopoulou; Pierre-Hugues Vivier; Ullrich Willi Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2012-09-22
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: Thom W Rooke; Alan T Hirsch; Sanjay Misra; Anton N Sidawy; Joshua A Beckman; Laura Findeiss; Jafar Golzarian; Heather L Gornik; Michael R Jaff; Gregory L Moneta; Jeffrey W Olin; James C Stanley; Christopher J White; John V White; R Eugene Zierler Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 24.094
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