AJR ARRS Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Qanadli, S. D.
Right arrow Articles by Oliva, V. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Qanadli, S. D.
Right arrow Articles by Oliva, V. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2001; 177:1123-1129
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Detection of Renal Artery Stenosis

Prospective Comparison of Captopril-Enhanced Doppler Sonography, Captopril-Enhanced Scintigraphy, and MR Angiography

Salah D. Qanadli1, Gilles Soulez1, Eric Therasse2, Viviane Nicolet1, Sophie Turpin3, Daniel Froment4, Maryse Courteau4, Marie-Claude Guertin5 and Vincent L. Oliva1

1 Department of Radiology, CHUM, Hôpital Notre-Dame, 1560 Sherbrooke St. E., Montréal, Quebec H2L 4M1, Canada.
2 Department of Radiology, CHUM, Hôpital Hotel-Dieu de Montréal, University of Montréal, 3840 St. Urbain, H2W 1T8 Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
3 Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHUM, Hôpital Hotel-Dieu de Montréal, University of Montréal, H2W 1T8 Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
4 Department of Medicine, CHUM, Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montréal, Quebec H2L 4M1, Canada.
5 Department of Biostatistics, Hotel-Dieu de Montréal, University of Montréal, Montréal, Quebec H2L 4M1, Canada.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the value of captopril-enhanced Doppler sonography, captopril-enhanced renal scintigraphy, and gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography for detecting renal artery stenosis.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Forty-one patients with suspected renovascular hypertension were prospectively examined with captopril-enhanced Doppler sonography, captopril-enhanced renal scintigraphy, gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography, and catheter angiography. The sensitivity and specificity of each technique for detecting renal artery stenosis measuring 50% or greater and 70% or greater were compared using the McNemar test. Positive and negative predictive values were estimated for populations with 5% and 30% prevalence of renal artery stenosis. Kappa values for interobserver agreement were assessed for both gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and catheter angiography.

RESULTS. For detecting renal artery stenosis measuring 50% or greater, the sensitivity of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography (96.6%) was greater than that of captopril-enhanced Doppler sonography (69%, p = 0.005) and captopril-enhanced renal scintigraphy (41.4%, p = 0.001). No significant difference in specificity was observed among modalities. For renal artery stenosis measuring 50% or greater, positive and negative predictive values were respectively 62% and 86% for captopril-enhanced Doppler sonography, 49% and 76% for captopril-enhanced renal scintigraphy, and 53% and 98% for gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. Interobserver agreement was high for both gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography ({kappa} = 0.829) and catheter angiography ({kappa} = 0.729).

CONCLUSION. Gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography is the most accurate noninvasive modality for detecting renal artery stenosis greater than or equal to 50%. The use of captopril-enhanced Doppler sonography in combination with gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography for identifying renal artery stenosis needs to be evaluated with a cost-effectiveness analysis.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
G. Soulez, M. Pasowicz, G. Benea, L. Grazioli, J. P. Niedmann, M. Konopka, P. C. Douek, G. Morana, F. K. W. Schaefer, A. Vanzulli, et al.
Renal Artery Stenosis Evaluation: Diagnostic Performance of Gadobenate Dimeglumine-enhanced MR Angiography--Comparison with DSA
Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 273 - 285.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
M. Prokop, G. Schneider, A. Vanzulli, M. Goyen, S. G. Ruehm, P. Douek, M. Dapra, G. Pirovano, M. A. Kirchin, and A. Spinazzi
Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography of the Renal Arteries: Blinded Multicenter Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine
Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 399 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal Watch CardiologyHome page
Accuracy of Screening Tests for Renal Artery Stenosis
Journal Watch Cardiology, January 18, 2002; 2002(118): 6 - 6.
[Full Text]


Home page
JWatch GeneralHome page
Accuracy of Screening Tests for Renal Artery Stenosis
Journal Watch (General), December 4, 2001; 2001(1204): 3 - 3.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.