Advertisement

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

  • Xiaoxia Guo
  • Ying Gong
  • Zhiyuan Wu
  • Fuhua Yan
  • Xiaoyi DingEmail author
  • Xueqin XuEmail author
Magnetic Resonance
  • 10 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Renal artery obstruction Magnetic resonance angiography Angiography, digital subtraction 

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

Notes

Funding information

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

Compliance with ethical standards

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

References

  1. 1.
    Safian RD, Textor SC (2001) Renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 344:431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garovic VD, Textor SC (2005) Renovascular hypertension and ischemic nephropathy. Circulation 112:1362–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 7:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Cutlip DE et al (2014) Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 370:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colyer WR, Eltahawy E, Cooper CJ (2011) Renal artery stenosis: optimizing diagnosis and treatment. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 54:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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 52:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tafur JD, White CJ (2017) Renal artery stenosis: when to revascularize in 2017. Curr Probl Cardiol 42:110–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Textor SC, McKusick MM (2016) Renal artery stenosis: if and when to intervene. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 25:144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 Google Scholar
  11. 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 682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 218:481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miyazaki M, Lee VS (2008) Nonenhanced MR angiography. Radiology 248:20–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 245:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 252:914–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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 239:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 28:4195–4204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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) 42:2479–2487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 32:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 194:794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 16:685–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slovut DP, Olin JW (2004) Fibromuscular dysplasia. N Engl J Med 350:1862–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 24:3042–3050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 3:200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 24:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 26:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 54:749–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 28:987–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 205:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interventional Radiology, Ruijin HospitalShanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyChildren’s Hospital of Fudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Ruijin HospitalShanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations