Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Noncontrast-enhanced magnetic resonance renal angiography using a repetitive artery and venous labelling technique at 3 T: comparison with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in subjects with normal renal function

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the feasibility of noncontrast-enhanced MR angiography (NC-MRA) using the repetitive artery and venous labelling (RAVEL) technique to evaluate renal arteries compared to contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA).

Methods

Twenty-five subjects with normal renal function underwent NC-MRA using a RAVEL technique and CE-MRA at 3 T. Two independent readers analysed the MRA images. Image quality, number of renal arteries, presence or absence of an early branching vessel, and diameter of the main renal arteries were evaluated.

Results

The overall image quality of NC-MRA was fair or greater in 88 % of right and 92 % of left renal arteries, while it was 96 % in both sides with CE-MRA. On NC-MRA, the number of renal arteries in all subjects was perfectly predicted by both readers. Sensitivity and specificity for predicting early branching vessels were 82 % and 100 % for reader 1 and 82 % and 95 % for reader 2. Inter-modality agreement for comparing the diameters of main renal arteries was good or excellent at all segments for both readers. Inter-reader agreement was moderate or good at all segments except at the right distal segment on NC-MRA.

Conclusion

NC-MRA with the RAVEL technique at 3 T may have comparable diagnostic feasibility for evaluating renal arteries compared to CE-MRA.

Key Points

• Accurate pre-treatment evaluation of renal artery anatomy helps clinical decision-making.

• NC-MRA using RAVEL offers acceptable imaging quality for renal artery evaluation.

• The 3 T RAVEL technique provides excellent diagnostic performance for renal artery evaluation.

• The 3 T RAVEL technique may be an alternative to contrast-enhanced MRA.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

NC-MRA:

Noncontrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography

RAVEL:

Repetitive artery and venous labelling

CE-MRA:

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography

ICC:

Intra-class correlation coefficient

CV:

Correlation of variance

NSF:

Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis

bSSFP:

Balanced steady-state free-procession

ASL:

Arterial spin labelling

TI:

Inversion time

FOV:

Field of view

SPIR:

Spectral pre-saturation inversion recovery

MIP:

Maximum intensity projection

FFE:

Fast field echo

References

  1. Kawamoto S, Montgomery RA, Lawler LP, Horton KM, Fishman EK (2003) Multidetector CT angiography for preoperative evaluation of living laparoscopic kidney donors. Am J Roentgenol 180:1633–1638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tan KT, Van Beek EJR, Brown PWG, Van Delden OM, Tijssen J, Ramsay LE (2002) Magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: A meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 57:617–624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brockow K (2005) Contrast media hypersensitivity − scope of the problem. Toxicology 209:189–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rudnick MR, Goldfarb S, Wexler L et al (1995) Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. The Iohexol Cooperative Study. Kidney Int 47:254–261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhave G, Lewis JB, Chang SS (2008) Association of gadolinium based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Urol 180:830–835, discussion 835

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang Y, Alkasab TK, Narin O et al (2011) Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after adoption of restrictive gadolinium-based contrast agent guidelines. Radiology 260:105–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yang L, Krefting I, Gorovets A et al (2012) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and class labeling of gadolinium-based contrast agents by the Food and Drug Administration. Radiology 265:248–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wyttenbach R, Braghetti A, Wyss M et al (2007) Renal artery assessment with nonenhanced steady-state free precession versus contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 245:186–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 252:914–921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu X, Berg N, Sheehan J et al (2009) Renal transplant: nonenhanced renal MR angiography with magnetization-prepared steady-state free precession. Radiology 251:535–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 194:794–798

  12. 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 259:592–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Khoo MM, Deeab D, Gedroyc WM, Duncan N, Taube D, Dick EA (2011) Renal artery stenosis: comparative assessment by unenhanced renal artery MRA versus contrast-enhanced MRA. Eur Radiol 21:1470–1476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 31:1411–1418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Laurence I, Ariff B, Quest RA et al (2012) Is there a role for free breathing non-contrast steady-state free precession renal MRA imaging for assessing live donors? A preliminary study. Br J Radiol 85:e448–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Xu JL, Shi DP, Li YL, Zhang JL, Zhu SC, Shen H (2011) Non-enhanced MR angiography of renal artery using inflow-sensitive inversion recovery pulse sequence: a prospective comparison with enhanced CT angiography. Eur J Radiol 80:e57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Holden A, Smith A, Dukes P, Pilmore H, Yasutomi M (2005) Assessment of 100 live potential renal donors for laparoscopic nephrectomy with multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 237:973–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chabchoub K, Mhiri MN, Bahloul A et al (2011) Does kidney transplantation with multiple arteries affect graft survival? Transplant Proc 43:3423–3425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tyson MD, Castle EP, Ko EY et al (2011) Living donor kidney transplantation with multiple renal arteries in the laparoscopic era. Urology 77:1116–1121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saidi R, Kawai T, Kennealey P et al (2009) Living donor kidney transplantation with multiple arteries: recent increase in modern era of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Arch Surg 144:472–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hsu TH, Su L, Ratner LE, Trock BJ, Kavoussi LR (2003) Impact of renal artery multiplicity on outcomes of renal donors and recipients in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology 61:323–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shichiri Y, Takao N, Oida T, Kanamaru H, Shimizu Y (2004) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for a renal tumor with tumor-feeding artery ligation: left renal cell carcinoma in the posterior mid zone. Int J Urol 11:1019–1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ramon J, Rimon U, Garniek A et al (2009) Renal angiomyolipoma: long-term results following selective arterial embolization. Eur Urol 55:1155–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Xu Y, Shao P, Zhu X et al (2013) Three-dimensional renal CT angiography for guiding segmental renal artery clamping during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Clin Radiol 68:e609–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shimada K, Isoda H, Okada T et al (2009) Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography for selective visualization of the hepatic vein and inferior vena cava with true steady-state free-precession sequence and time-spatial labeling inversion pulses: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:474–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Klein AS, Messersmith EE, Ratner LE, Kochik R, Baliga PK, Ojo AO (2010) Organ donation and utilization in the United States, 1999-2008. Am J Transplant 10:973–986

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ali-El-Dein B, Osman Y, Shokeir AA, Shehab El-Dein AB, Sheashaa H, Ghoneim MA (2003) Multiple arteries in live donor renal transplantation: surgical aspects and outcomes. J Urol 169:2013–2017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schwartz CJ, White TA (1964) Stenosis of renal artery: an unselected necropsy study. Br Med J 2:1415–1421

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tan KT, van Beek EJ, Brown PW, van Delden OM, Tijssen J, Ramsay LE (2002) Magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 57:617–624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Attallah N, Yee J, Gutierrez A, Musial J, Parasuraman R (2003) Likelihood ratios in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis by magnetic resonance angiography compared with renal angiography. Am J Hypertens 16:987–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thornton J, O'Callaghan J, Walshe J, O'Brien E, Varghese JC, Lee MJ (1999) Comparison of digital subtraction angiography with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Eur Radiol 9:930–934

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Chan Kyo Kim. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Sookyoung Woo, PhD, kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. The study protocol was approved by our institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from each participant. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because this study was on human subjects. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50 Ilwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea 135-710

    Sung Yoon Park, Chan Kyo Kim & Byung Kwan Park

  2. Philips Healthcare Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    EunJu Kim

  3. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Sung Yoon Park

Authors
  1. Sung Yoon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chan Kyo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. EunJu Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Byung Kwan Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chan Kyo Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, S.Y., Kim, C.K., Kim, E. et al. Noncontrast-enhanced magnetic resonance renal angiography using a repetitive artery and venous labelling technique at 3 T: comparison with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in subjects with normal renal function. Eur Radiol 25, 533–540 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3416-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3416-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation