Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The capability of inflow inversion recovery magnetic resonance compared to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance in renal artery angiography

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the capability of inflow inversion recovery (IFIR) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), compared with contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) as reference standard, in evaluating renal artery stenosis (RAS).

Methods

Seventy-two subjects were examined by IFIR MRA with respiratory-gated, prior to CE-MRA with a 1.5-T scanner. Two readers evaluated the quality of IFIR MRA images and renal artery depiction on artery-by-artery basis. The agreement of two methods to assess RAS was analyzed using the Kappa test. The relationship between image quality of IFIR MRA and respiratory rate was analyzed by ANOVA test.

Results

The visibility of renal artery branch vessels was significantly higher using IFIR MRA than CE-MRA (p < 0.05). A good agreement of two methods in evaluating stenosis grade, and a near-perfect inter-observer agreement for IFIR MRA (Kappa value 0.98) and CE-MRA (Kappa value 0.93), were demonstrated. As RAS ≥50%, the sensitivity and specificity of IFIR MRA were 92 and 98% in reader 1, 93 and 98% in reader 2, respectively. The image quality was significantly better in patients with stable respiration (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

IFIR MRA in patients with stable respiration has higher visibility of renal artery branch vessels than CE-MRA, and a good agreement with CE-MRA in evaluating stenosis grade. It could be used to evaluate RAS for screening, and monitoring treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hajjar I, Kotchen JM, Kotchen TA (2006) Hypertension: trends in prevalence, incidence, and control. Annu Rev Public Health 27:465–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Safian RD, Textor SC (2001) Renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 344(6):431–442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. AbuRahma AF, Yacoub M (2013) Renal imaging: duplex ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, and angiography. Semin Vasc Surg 26(4):134–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eklof H, Ahlstrom H, Magnusson A, et al. (2006) A prospective comparison of duplex ultrasonography, captopril renography, MRA, and CTA in assessing renal artery stenosis. Acta Radiol 47(8):764–774

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Glockner JF, Takahashi N, Kawashima A, et al. (2010) Non-contrast renal artery MRA using an inflow inversion recovery steady state free precession technique (Inhance): comparison with 3D contrast-enhanced MRA. J Magn Reson Imaging 31(6):1411–1418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Prince MR, Zhang H, Morris MA, et al. (2008) Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis at two large medical centers. Radiology 248(3):807–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Broome DR (2008) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis associated with gadolinium based contrast agents: a summary of the medical literature reporting. Eur J Radiol. 66(2):230–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinreb JC, Kuo PH (2009) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 17(1):159–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Morita S, Masukawa A, Suzuki K, et al. (2011) Unenhanced MR angiography: techniques and clinical applications in patients with chronic kidney disease. Radiographics 31(2):E13–E33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Miyazaki M, Lee VS (2008) Nonenhanced MR angiography. Radiology 248(1):20–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson GJ, Maki JH (2009) Non-contrast-enhanced MR imaging of renal artery stenosis at 1.5 tesla. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 17(1):13–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(1):186–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Parienty I, Rostoker G, Jouniaux F, et al. (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(2):592–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bley TA, François CJ, Schiebler ML, et al. (2016) Non-contrast-enhanced MRA of renal artery stenosis validation against DSA in a porcine model. Eur Radiol 26(2):547–555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(12):3042–3050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fain SB, King BF, Breen JF, et al. (2001) High-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the renal arteries: a prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 218(2):481–490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tan KT, van Beek EJ, Brown PW, et al. (2002) Magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 57(7):617–624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kramer U, Wiskirchen J, Fenchel MC, et al. (2008) Isotropic high-spatial resolution contrast-enhanced 3.0-T MR angiography in patients suspected of having renal artery stenosis. Radiology 247(1):228–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McGregor R, Vymazal J, Martinez-Lopez M, et al. (2008) A multi-center, comparative, phase 3 study to determine the efficacy of gadofosveset-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for evaluation of renal artery disease. Eur J Radiol 65(2):316–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Soulez G, Pasowicz M, Benea G, et al. (2008) Renal artery stenosis evaluation: diagnostic performance of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR angiography-comparison with DSA. Radiology 247(1):273–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. François CJ, Lum DP, Johnson KM, et al. (2011) Renal arteries: isotropic, high-spatial-resolution, unenhanced MR angiography with three-dimensional radial phase contrast. Radiology 258(1):254–260

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Shin T, Worters PW, Hu BS, et al. (2013) Non-contrast-enhanced renal and abdominal MR angiography using velocity-selective inversion preparation. Magn Reson Med. 69(5):1268–1275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Utsunomiya D, Miyazaki M, Nomitsu Y, et al. (2008) Clinical role of non-contrast magnetic resonance angiography for evaluation of renal artery stenosis. Circ J. 72(10):1627–1630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Khoo MM, Deeab D, Gedroyc WM, et al. (2011) Renal artery stenosis: comparative assessment by unenhanced renal artery MRA versus contrast-enhanced MRA. Eur Radiol 21(7):1470–1476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Miyazaki M, Akahane M (2012) Non-contrast enhanced MR angiography: established techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 35(1):1–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Serai S, Towbin AJ, Podberesky DJ (2012) Non-contrast MRA using an inflow-enhanced, inversion recovery SSFP technique in pediatric abdominal imaging. Pediatr Radiol 42(3):364–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Ruijin hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, No 197 Ruijin ER road, 200025, Shanghai, China

    Xueqin Xu, Xiaozhu Lin, Juan Huang, Zhaocheng Pan, Xiaolei Zhu, Kemin Chen & Fuhua Yan

  2. Department of Radiology and Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

    Chi-Shing Zee

Authors
  1. Xueqin Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaozhu Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhaocheng Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaolei Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kemin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chi-Shing Zee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fuhua Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fuhua Yan.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this study

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, X., Lin, X., Huang, J. et al. The capability of inflow inversion recovery magnetic resonance compared to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance in renal artery angiography. Abdom Radiol 42, 2479–2487 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1161-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1161-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation