Renal artery assessment with non-enhanced MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography: comparison between 1.5 and 3.0 T
- 10 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
KeywordsRenal artery obstruction Magnetic resonance angiography Angiography, digital subtraction
Balanced steady-state free precession
Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography
Digital subtraction angiography
Maximum intensity projection
Non-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography
Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis
Peak systolic velocity
Renal artery stenosis
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because this was a retrospective study.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• diagnostic or prognostic study
• performed at one institution
- 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–e654CrossRefGoogle 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 259:592–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar