Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

bSSFP:

Balanced steady-state free precession

CE-MRA:

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography

CIN:

Contrast-induced nephropathy

DSA:

Digital subtraction angiography

FMD:

Fibromuscular dysplasia

MIP:

Maximum intensity projection

NE-MRA:

Non-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography

NSF:

Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis

PSV:

Peak systolic velocity

RAS:

Renal artery stenosis

References

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Garovic VD, Textor SC (2005) Renovascular hypertension and ischemic nephropathy. Circulation 112:1362–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 7:275–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Cutlip DE et al (2014) Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 370:13–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Colyer WR, Eltahawy E, Cooper CJ (2011) Renal artery stenosis: optimizing diagnosis and treatment. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 54:29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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–e654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 52:229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tafur JD, White CJ (2017) Renal artery stenosis: when to revascularize in 2017. Curr Probl Cardiol 42:110–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Textor SC, McKusick MM (2016) Renal artery stenosis: if and when to intervene. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 25:144–151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Neumyer MM, Blebea J (2013) Duplex evaluation of the renal arteries. In: AbuRahma AF, Bandyk DF (eds) Noninvasive vascular diagnosis. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4005-4

  11. 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 682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 218:481–490

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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  Google Scholar 

  15. 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  Google Scholar 

  16. 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  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 239:263–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 28:4195–4204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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) 42:2479–2487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 32:495–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 16:685–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Slovut DP, Olin JW (2004) Fibromuscular dysplasia. N Engl J Med 350:1862–1871

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 24:3042–3050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 3:200–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 24:531–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 26:547–555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Angeretti MG, Lumia D, Cani A et al (2013) Non-enhanced MR angiography of renal arteries: comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Acta Radiol 54:749–756

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 28:987–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 205:121–127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interventional Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China

    Xiaoxia Guo, Zhiyuan Wu & Xiaoyi Ding

  2. Department of Radiology, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, 201102, China

    Ying Gong

  3. Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China

    Fuhua Yan & Xueqin Xu

Authors
  1. Xiaoxia Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ying Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhiyuan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fuhua Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaoyi Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xueqin Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiaoyi Ding or Xueqin Xu.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Xueqin Xu.

Conflict of interest

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.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because this was a retrospective study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Xiaoxia Guo and Ying Gong are co-first authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guo, X., Gong, Y., Wu, Z. et al. Renal artery assessment with non-enhanced MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography: comparison between 1.5 and 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 30, 1747–1754 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06440-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06440-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation