Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 3/2020

01-03-2020 | Renal Artery Stenosis | Magnetic Resonance

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

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare non-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (NE-MRA) between 1.5 and 3.0-T using a balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) sequence in the assessment of renal artery stenosis (RAS) with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as a reference standard.

Methods

From March 2016 to May 2018, 81 patients suspected to have significant RAS were scheduled for DSA. All patients underwent NE-MRA at either 1.5 T or 3.0 T randomly before DSA. In total, 49 patients underwent 1.5-T NE-MRA, and 32 patients underwent 3.0-T NE-MRA. Image quality was assessed. Degree of stenosis evaluated with NE-MRA was compared with that with DSA.

Results

NE-MRA provided excellent image qualities for segment 1 and segment 2 at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Image qualities for segment 3 and segment 4 and the degree of renal artery branches were significantly higher at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T (p < 0.01). Stenoses evaluated with NE-MRA at 1.5 T (r = 0.853, p < 0.01) and 3.0 T (r = 0.811, p < 0.01) were highly correlated with those of DSA. The Bland-Altman plots showed overestimated degrees of stenosis at 1.5 T (mean bias, 3.5% ± 20.4) and 3.0 T (mean bias, 8.4% ± 21.7). The sensitivity and specificity for significant stenosis were 97.4% and 89.8% for 1.5 T and 95.7% and 91.1% for 3.0 T.

Conclusions

Both 1.5-T and 3.0-T bSSFP NE-MRA can reliably assess RAS, with high image quality and good diagnostic accuracy. Performing NE-MRA at 3.0 T significantly improved visualization of renal artery branches but showed greater tendency to overestimate stenosis compared with that at 1.5 T.

Key Points

• Both 1.5-T and 3.0-T NE-MRA provide excellent image quality and good diagnostic accuracy for RAS.
• NE-MRA at 3.0 T improved visualization of renal artery branches compared with that at 1.5 T.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Safian RD, Textor SC (2001) Renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 344:431–442CrossRef Safian RD, Textor SC (2001) Renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 344:431–442CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Garovic VD, Textor SC (2005) Renovascular hypertension and ischemic nephropathy. Circulation 112:1362–1374CrossRef Garovic VD, Textor SC (2005) Renovascular hypertension and ischemic nephropathy. Circulation 112:1362–1374CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gray BH, Olin JW, Childs MB, Sullivan TM, Bacharach JM (2002) Clinical benefit of renal artery angioplasty with stenting for the control of recurrent and refractory congestive heart failure. Vasc Med 7:275–279CrossRef Gray BH, Olin JW, Childs MB, Sullivan TM, Bacharach JM (2002) Clinical benefit of renal artery angioplasty with stenting for the control of recurrent and refractory congestive heart failure. Vasc Med 7:275–279CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Cutlip DE et al (2014) Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 370:13–22CrossRef Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Cutlip DE et al (2014) Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 370:13–22CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Colyer WR, Eltahawy E, Cooper CJ (2011) Renal artery stenosis: optimizing diagnosis and treatment. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 54:29–35CrossRef Colyer WR, Eltahawy E, Cooper CJ (2011) Renal artery stenosis: optimizing diagnosis and treatment. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 54:29–35CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR et al (2006) ACC/AHA 2005 practice guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. Circulation 113:e463–e654CrossRef Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR et al (2006) ACC/AHA 2005 practice guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. Circulation 113:e463–e654CrossRef
7.
go back to reference White CJ (2009) Management of renal artery stenosis: the case for intervention, defending current guidelines, and screening (drive-by) renal angiography at the time of catheterization. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 52:229–237CrossRef White CJ (2009) Management of renal artery stenosis: the case for intervention, defending current guidelines, and screening (drive-by) renal angiography at the time of catheterization. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 52:229–237CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Tafur JD, White CJ (2017) Renal artery stenosis: when to revascularize in 2017. Curr Probl Cardiol 42:110–135CrossRef Tafur JD, White CJ (2017) Renal artery stenosis: when to revascularize in 2017. Curr Probl Cardiol 42:110–135CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Textor SC, McKusick MM (2016) Renal artery stenosis: if and when to intervene. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 25:144–151CrossRef Textor SC, McKusick MM (2016) Renal artery stenosis: if and when to intervene. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 25:144–151CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Vasbinder GB, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG et al (2004) Accuracy of computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography for diagnosing renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med 141:674–682 discussion 682CrossRef Vasbinder GB, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG et al (2004) Accuracy of computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography for diagnosing renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med 141:674–682 discussion 682CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Fain SB, King BF, Breen JF, Kruger DG, Riederer SJ (2001) High-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the renal arteries: a prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 218:481–490CrossRef Fain SB, King BF, Breen JF, Kruger DG, Riederer SJ (2001) High-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the renal arteries: a prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 218:481–490CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Miyazaki M, Lee VS (2008) Nonenhanced MR angiography. Radiology 248:20–43CrossRef Miyazaki M, Lee VS (2008) Nonenhanced MR angiography. Radiology 248:20–43CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wyttenbach R, Braghetti A, Wyss M et al (2007) Renal artery assessment with nonenhanced steady-state free precession versus contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 245:186–195CrossRef Wyttenbach R, Braghetti A, Wyss M et al (2007) Renal artery assessment with nonenhanced steady-state free precession versus contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 245:186–195CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Lanzman RS, Voiculescu A, Walther C et al (2009) ECG-gated nonenhanced 3D steady-state free precession MR angiography in assessment of transplant renal arteries: comparison with DSA. Radiology 252:914–921CrossRef Lanzman RS, Voiculescu A, Walther C et al (2009) ECG-gated nonenhanced 3D steady-state free precession MR angiography in assessment of transplant renal arteries: comparison with DSA. Radiology 252:914–921CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Parienty I, Rostoker G, Jouniaux F, Piotin M, Admiraal-Behloul F, Miyazaki M (2011) Renal artery stenosis evaluation in chronic kidney disease patients: nonenhanced time-spatial labeling inversion-pulse three-dimensional MR angiography with regulated breathing versus DSA. Radiology 259:592–601CrossRef Parienty I, Rostoker G, Jouniaux F, Piotin M, Admiraal-Behloul F, Miyazaki M (2011) Renal artery stenosis evaluation in chronic kidney disease patients: nonenhanced time-spatial labeling inversion-pulse three-dimensional MR angiography with regulated breathing versus DSA. Radiology 259:592–601CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Herborn CU, Watkins DM, Runge VM, Gendron JM, Montgomery ML, Naul LG (2006) Renal arteries: comparison of steady-state free precession MR angiography and contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 239:263–268CrossRef Herborn CU, Watkins DM, Runge VM, Gendron JM, Montgomery ML, Naul LG (2006) Renal arteries: comparison of steady-state free precession MR angiography and contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 239:263–268CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Zhang LJ, Peng J, Wen J et al (2018) Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: a reliable clinical tool for evaluating transplant renal artery stenosis. Eur Radiol 28:4195–4204CrossRef Zhang LJ, Peng J, Wen J et al (2018) Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: a reliable clinical tool for evaluating transplant renal artery stenosis. Eur Radiol 28:4195–4204CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Xu X, Lin X, Huang J et al (2017) The capability of inflow inversion recovery magnetic resonance compared to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance in renal artery angiography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:2479–2487CrossRef Xu X, Lin X, Huang J et al (2017) The capability of inflow inversion recovery magnetic resonance compared to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance in renal artery angiography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:2479–2487CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Trautmann A, Roebuck DJ, McLaren CA, Brennan E, Marks SD, Tullus K (2017) Non-invasive imaging cannot replace formal angiography in the diagnosis of renovascular hypertension. Pediatr Nephrol 32:495–502CrossRef Trautmann A, Roebuck DJ, McLaren CA, Brennan E, Marks SD, Tullus K (2017) Non-invasive imaging cannot replace formal angiography in the diagnosis of renovascular hypertension. Pediatr Nephrol 32:495–502CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Lanzman RS, Kropil P, Schmitt P et al (2010) Nonenhanced free-breathing ECG-gated steady-state free precession 3D MR angiography of the renal arteries: comparison between 1.5 T and 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:794–798CrossRef Lanzman RS, Kropil P, Schmitt P et al (2010) Nonenhanced free-breathing ECG-gated steady-state free precession 3D MR angiography of the renal arteries: comparison between 1.5 T and 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:794–798CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Vasbinder GB, Maki JH, Nijenhuis RJ et al (2002) Motion of the distal renal artery during three-dimensional contrast-enhanced breath-hold MRA. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:685–696CrossRef Vasbinder GB, Maki JH, Nijenhuis RJ et al (2002) Motion of the distal renal artery during three-dimensional contrast-enhanced breath-hold MRA. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:685–696CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Slovut DP, Olin JW (2004) Fibromuscular dysplasia. N Engl J Med 350:1862–1871CrossRef Slovut DP, Olin JW (2004) Fibromuscular dysplasia. N Engl J Med 350:1862–1871CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gaudiano C, Busato F, Ferramosca E et al (2014) 3D FIESTA pulse sequence for assessing renal artery stenosis: is it a reliable application in unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography? Eur Radiol 24:3042–3050CrossRef Gaudiano C, Busato F, Ferramosca E et al (2014) 3D FIESTA pulse sequence for assessing renal artery stenosis: is it a reliable application in unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography? Eur Radiol 24:3042–3050CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Sebastia C, Sotomayor AD, Pano B et al (2016) Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis. Eur J Radiol Open 3:200–206CrossRef Sebastia C, Sotomayor AD, Pano B et al (2016) Accuracy of unenhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of renal artery stenosis. Eur J Radiol Open 3:200–206CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Gulas E, Wysiadecki G, Cecot T et al (2016) Accessory (multiple) renal arteries - differences in frequency according to population, visualizing techniques and stage of morphological development. Vascular 24:531–537CrossRef Gulas E, Wysiadecki G, Cecot T et al (2016) Accessory (multiple) renal arteries - differences in frequency according to population, visualizing techniques and stage of morphological development. Vascular 24:531–537CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Bley TA, Francois CJ, Schiebler ML et al (2016) Non-contrast-enhanced MRA of renal artery stenosis: validation against DSA in a porcine model. Eur Radiol 26:547–555CrossRef Bley TA, Francois CJ, Schiebler ML et al (2016) Non-contrast-enhanced MRA of renal artery stenosis: validation against DSA in a porcine model. Eur Radiol 26:547–555CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Angeretti MG, Lumia D, Cani A et al (2013) Non-enhanced MR angiography of renal arteries: comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Acta Radiol 54:749–756CrossRef Angeretti MG, Lumia D, Cani A et al (2013) Non-enhanced MR angiography of renal arteries: comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Acta Radiol 54:749–756CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kerwin WS, Liu F, Yarnykh V et al (2008) Signal features of the atherosclerotic plaque at 3.0 tesla versus 1.5 tesla: impact on automatic classification. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:987–995CrossRef Kerwin WS, Liu F, Yarnykh V et al (2008) Signal features of the atherosclerotic plaque at 3.0 tesla versus 1.5 tesla: impact on automatic classification. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:987–995CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Kaatee R, Beek FJ, de Lange EE et al (1997) Renal artery stenosis: detection and quantification with spiral CT angiography versus optimized digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 205:121–127CrossRef Kaatee R, Beek FJ, de Lange EE et al (1997) Renal artery stenosis: detection and quantification with spiral CT angiography versus optimized digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 205:121–127CrossRef
Metadata
Title
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
Publication date
01-03-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06440-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

European Radiology 3/2020 Go to the issue