Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Jun 19:19:475-82.
doi: 10.12659/MSM.889035.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of Doppler USG and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and selective renal arteriography in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis

Kenan Turgutalp  1 , Ahmet Kiykim, Onur Özhan, Ilter Helvaci, Türkay Ozcan, Altan Yildiz
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of Doppler USG and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and selective renal arteriography in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis

Kenan Turgutalp et al. Med Sci Monit. .

Abstract

Background: There are many systemic complications of conventional selective renal arteriography (SRA), such as contrast-mediated nephropathy. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) and renal artery Doppler ultrasonography (DUSG) have been used increasingly for renal artery stenosis (RAS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CE-MRA and DUSG as used for diagnosis of RAS.

Material and methods: We divided 130 consecutive patients investigated for resistant hypertension into 2 groups based on age: group 1 was patients <60 years old and group 2 was patients >60 year. DUSG, CE-MRA, and SRA were performed in group 1 and group 2 patients.

Results: Seventy-two patients (24 males [M], 48 females [F]) in group 1, and 58 patients (26 M, 32 F) in group 2 were included in the study. In the evaluation of clinically significant renal artery stenosis with DUSG, in group 1 the overall sensitivity was 83.33% and overall specificity was 81.82%, and in group 2 they were 69.23% and 0%, respectively, when compared with SRA. In the evaluation of clinically significant renal artery stenosis with CE-MRA, the overall sensitivity and specificity were 92.31% and 36.36%, respectively, in group 1 and 100.00% and 73.33%, respectively in group 2, when compared with SRA.

Conclusions: CE-MRA is an accurate, non-invasive method for the diagnosis of RAS in patients above 60 years of age and DUSG may be the choice of diagnostic method for RAS in patients under 60 years of age.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Steinwender C, Schützenberger W, Fellner F, et al. 64-Detector CT angiography in renal artery stent evaluation: prospective comparison with selective catheter angiography. Radiology. 2009;252:299–305. - PubMed
    1. Solomon R, Dauerman HL. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Circulation. 2010;122:2451–55. - PubMed
    1. Law YM, Tay KH, Gan YU, et al. Gadoliniumenhanced magnetic resonance angiography in renal artery stenosis: Comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Hong Kong Med J. 2008;14:136–41. - PubMed
    1. Fenlon HM, Yücel EK. Advences in abdominal, aortic and peripheral contrast-enhanced MR angiography. MRI Clin Nort Am. 1999;7:319–36. - PubMed
    1. Khoo MM, Deeab D, Gedroyc WM, et al. Renal artery stenosis: comparative assessment by unenhanced renal artery MRA versus contrast-enhanced MRA. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1470–76. - PubMed

Publication types