Advertisement

Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 270–277 | Cite as

Value of the Filtration Fraction Assessed by Dynamic 99mTc-Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic Acid Renal Scintigraphy After Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition for the Diagnosis of Renovascular Hypertension

  • Eonwoo Shin
  • Changhwan Sung
  • Hye Joo Son
  • Dong Yun Lee
  • Sun Young Chae
  • Dae Hyuk MoonEmail author
Original Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of the relative filtration fraction (RFF) assessed by dynamic 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (99mTc-DTPA) renal scintigraphy after angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition for renovascular hypertension (RVHT) diagnosis.

Methods

99mTc-DTPA captopril renal scintigraphy performed in adolescents or adults (≥ 10 years) with suspected RVHT was retrospectively reviewed. The RFF of the affected kidney was qualitatively assessed as the relative glomerular filtration rate during the 2 to 3-min period compared with the relative perfusion during the first 60 s (qualitative RFF) and scored from 1 (definitely same) to 5 (definitely decreased). The quantitative RFF of the affected kidney was obtained by dividing the percentage of glomerular filtration rate by the percentage of renal perfusion.

Results

Overall, 173 patients (high probability, n = 15; and low probability, n = 158) were included based on conventional captopril renal scintigraphic criteria. An abnormal qualitative RFF was observed in 12 patients with high probability, and the diagnostic sensitivity was 80.0% (95% CI, 51.9–95.7). The RFF was normal in 152 patients with low probability, and the diagnostic specificity was 96.2% (95% CI, 91.9–98.6). The RFF was lower in patients with high probability than in those with low probability (0.79 ± 0.15 vs. 1.02 ± 0.11, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The RFF assessed by dynamic 99mTc-DTPA renal scintigraphy after ACE inhibition can detect patients with high probability for RVHT. The RFF after ACE inhibition might be a useful diagnostic criterion especially when baseline scintigraphy is not available for evaluating ACE inhibition-induced changes.

Keywords

99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid renal scintigraphy Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition Renovascular hypertension Filtration fraction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mr. Young-Hee Lee for his expert technical assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Eonwoo Shin, Hye Joo Son, Dong Yun Lee, Sun Young Chae, and Dae Hyuk Moon declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed Consent

The institutional review board at our institute approved this retrospective study, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived.

References

  1. 1.
    Textor SC. Renal arterial disease and hypertension. Med Clin North Am. 2017;101:65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Textor SC, Lerman L. Renovascular hypertension and ischemic nephropathy. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:1159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Safian RD, Madder RD. Refining the approach to renal artery revascularization. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:161–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Leeuw PW, Postma CT, Kroon AA. Treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: time for a new approach. JAMA. 2013;309:663–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bax L, Woittiez AJ, Kouwenberg HJ, Mali WP, Buskens E, Beek FJ, et al. Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:840–8 W150–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Investigators A, Wheatley K, Ives N, Gray R, Kalra PA, Moss JG, et al. Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1953–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dondi M, Fanti S, De Fabritiis A, Zuccala A, Gaggi R, Mirelli M, et al. Prognostic value of captopril renal scintigraphy in renovascular hypertension. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:2040–4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahn D, Ben-Haim S, Bushnell DL, Madsen MT, Kirchner PT. Captopril-enhanced 99Tcm-MAG3 renal scintigraphy in subjects with suspected renovascular hypertension. Nucl Med Commun. 1994;15:515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mittal BR, Kumar P, Arora P, Kher V, Singhal MK, Maini A, et al. Role of captopril renography in the diagnosis of renovascular hypertension. Am J Kidney Dis. 1996;28:209–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helin KH, Tikkanen I, von Knorring JE, Lepantalo MJ, Liewendahl BK, Laasonen LS, et al. Screening for renovascular hypertension in a population with relatively low prevalence. J Hypertens. 1998;16:1523–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karanikas G, Becherer A, Wiesner K, Dudczak R, Kletter K. ACE inhibition is superior to angiotensin receptor blockade for renography in renal artery stenosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:312–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kon V, Fogo A, Ichikawa I. Bradykinin causes selective efferent arteriolar dilation during angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibition. Kidney Int. 1993;44:545–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor A, Nally J, Aureli M, Blaufox D, Dondi M, Dubovsky E, et al. Consensus report on ACE inhibitor renography for detecting renovascular hypertension. Radionuclides in Nephrourology Group. Consensus group on ACEI renography. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1876–82.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Visscher CA, de Zeeuw D, de Jong PE, Piers DA, Beekhuis H, Groothuis GM, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition-induced changes in hippurate renography and renal function in renovascular hypertension. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:482–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor AT Jr, Fletcher JW, Nally JV Jr, Blaufox MD, Dubovsky EV, Fine EJ, et al. Procedure guideline for diagnosis of renovascular hypertension. Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1297–302.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schreij G, van Es PN, van Kroonenburgh MJ, Kemerink GJ, Heidendal GA, de Leeuw PW. Baseline and postcaptopril renal blood flow measurements in hypertensives suspected of renal artery stenosis. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1652–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peters AM, Brown J, Crossman D, Brady AJ, Hemingway AP, Roddie ME, et al. Noninvasive measurement of renal blood flow with technetium-99m-DTPA in the evaluation of patients with suspected renovascular hypertension. J Nucl Med. 1990;31:1980–5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor AT. Radionuclides in nephrourology, part 1: radiopharmaceuticals, quality control, and quantitative indices. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:608–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nally JV, Clarke HS, Windham JP, Grecos GP, Gross ML, Potvin WJ. Technetium-99m DTPA renal flow studies in Goldblatt hypertension. J Nucl Med. 1985;26:917–24.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choi SJ, Hong IK, Chang JW, Park SK, Moon DH. Diagnostic criteria of 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid captopril renal scan for the diagnosis of renovascular hypertension by unilateral renal artery stenosis. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;38:498–505.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor AT. Radionuclides in nephrourology, part 2: pitfalls and diagnostic applications. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:786–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chandler ST, Gibson CJ, Elliott L. Models of renal blood flow and their use in the detection of renal artery stenosis. Nucl Med Commun. 1990;11:427–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nally JV Jr. Renal scintigraphy in the evaluation of renovascular hypertension: a note of optimism yet caution. J Nucl Med. 1987;28:1501–5.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hansen KJ, Edwards MS, Craven TE, Cherr GS, Jackson SA, Appel RG, et al. Prevalence of renovascular disease in the elderly: a population-based study. J Vasc Surg. 2002;36:443–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hanley M, Dogra VS, Goldfarb S, Gore JL, Savage SJ, Steigner ML, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® renovascular hypertension. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:S540–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leung AA, Daskalopoulou SS, Dasgupta K, McBrien K, Butalia S, Zarnke KB, et al. Hypertension Canada's 2017 guidelines for diagnosis, risk assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33:557–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riaz IB, Husnain M, Riaz H, Asawaeer M, Bilal J, Pandit A, et al. Meta-analysis of revascularization versus medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2014;114:1116–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mousa AY, AbuRahma AF, Bozzay J, Broce M, Bates M. Update on intervention versus medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:1613–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tafur JD, White CJ. Renal artery stenosis: when to revascularize in 2017. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2017;42:110–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eonwoo Shin
    • 1
  • Changhwan Sung
    • 1
  • Hye Joo Son
    • 1
  • Dong Yun Lee
    • 1
  • Sun Young Chae
    • 1
  • Dae Hyuk Moon
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSongpa-guRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations