Vascular and Interventional Radiology

High-Spatial-Resolution MR Angiography of Renal Arteries with Integrated Parallel Acquisitions: Comparison with Digital Subtraction Angiography and US

Published Online:May 1 2005https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2352031693

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography, performed with an integrated parallel acquisition technique for high isotropic spatial resolution, with selective digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and intravascular ultrasonography (US) for accuracy of diameter and area measurements in renal artery stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and consent was obtained from all patients. Forty-five patients (17 women, 28 men; mean age, 62.2 years) were evaluated for suspected renal artery stenosis. Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiograms were acquired with isotropic spatial resolution of 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.9 mm in 23-second breath-hold with an integrated parallel acquisition technique. In-plane diameter of stenosis was measured along vessel axis, and perpendicular diameter and area of stenosis were assessed in cross sections orthogonal to vessel axis, on multiplanar reformations. Interobserver agreement between two radiologists in measurements of in-plane and perpendicular diameters of stenosis and perpendicular area of stenosis was assessed with mean percentage of difference. In a subset of patients, degree of stenosis at MR angiography was compared with that at DSA (n = 20) and intravascular US (n = 11) by using Bland-Altman plots and correlation analyses.

RESULTS: Mean percentage of difference in stenosis measurement was reduced from 39.3% ± 78.4 (standard deviation) with use of in-plane views to 12.6% ± 9.5 with use of cross-sectional views (P < .05). Interobserver agreement for stenosis grading based on perpendicular area of stenosis was significantly better than that for stenosis grading based on in-plane diameter of stenosis (mean percentage of difference, 15.2% ± 24.2 vs 54.9% ± 186.9; P < .001). Measurements of perpendicular area of stenosis on MR angiograms correlated well with those on intravascular US images (r² = 0.90).

CONCLUSION: Evaluation of cross-sectional images reconstructed from high-spatial-resolution three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR renal angiographic data increases the accuracy of the technique and decreases interobserver variability.

References

1 Vasbinder GB, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG, Kroon AA, de Leeuw PW, van Engelshoven JM. Diagnostic tests for renal artery stenosis in patients suspected of having renovascular hypertension: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:401-411. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 Tan KT, van Beek EJ, Brown PW, van Delden OM, Tijssen J, Ramsay LE. Magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2002; 57:617-624. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 Gilfeather M, Yoon HC, Siegelman ES, et al. Renal artery stenosis: evaluation with conventional angiography versus gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 1999; 210:367-372. Link, Google Scholar
4 Schoenberg SO, Knopp MV, Londy F, et al. Morphologic and functional magnetic resonance imaging of renal artery stenosis: a multireader tricenter study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13:158-169. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5 Vasbinder GBC, De Haan MW, van Engelshoven JMA. Accuracy of CTA and 3D contrast-enhanced MRA as compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography for assessment of the number of renal arteries in 356 subjects (abstr). Radiology 2002; 225(P):400. Link, Google Scholar
6 Vasbinder GB, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG, et al. Renal Artery Diagnostic Imaging Study in Hypertension (RADISH) Study Group. Accuracy of computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography for diagnosing renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141:674-682. Google Scholar
7 Leertouwer TC, Gussenhoven EJ, Bosch JL, et al. Stent placement for renal arterial stenosis: where do we stand? a meta-analysis. Radiology 2000; 216:78-85. Link, Google Scholar
8 Beebe HG, Chesebro K, Merchant F, Bush W. Results of renal artery balloon angioplasty limit its indications. J Vasc Surg 1988; 8:300-306. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9 Isles CG, Robertson S, Hill D. Management of renovascular disease: a review of renal artery stenting in ten studies. QJM 1999; 92:159-167. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10 Hanekamp CE, Koolen JJ, Pijls NH, Michels HR, Bonnier HJ. Comparison of quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, and coronary pressure measurement to assess optimum stent deployment. Circulation 1999; 99:1015-1021. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11 Schoenberg SO, Rieger J, Nittka M, Dietrich O, Johannson LO, Reiser MF. Renal MR angiography: current debates and developments in imaging of renal artery stenosis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2003; 24:255-267. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12 Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Kassner A, et al. Contrast-enhanced 3D MRA using SENSE. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12:671-677. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Rundback JH, Sacks D, Kent KC, et al. Guidelines for the reporting of renal artery revascularization in clinical trials. American Heart Association. Circulation 2002; 106:1572-1585. Google Scholar
14 van Jaarsveld BC, Krijnen P, Pieterman H, et al. The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1007-1014. Google Scholar
15 Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, et al. Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 2002; 47:1202-1210. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
16 Herborn CU, Lauenstein TC, Ruehm SG, Bosk S, Debatin JF, Goyen M. Intraindividual comparison of gadopentetate dimeglumine, gadobenate dimeglumine, and gadobutrol for pelvic 3D magnetic resonance angiography. Invest Radiol 2003; 38:27-33. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
17 De Scheerder I, De Man F, Herregods MC, et al. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography for measurement of luminal diameters in normal and diseased coronary arteries. Am Heart J 1994; 127:243-251. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18 Schoenberg SO, Bock M, Kallinowski F, Just A. Correlation of hemodynamic impact and morphologic degree of renal artery stenosis in a canine model. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11:2190-2198. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
19 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307-310. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
20 Hollander M, Wolfe DA. The two-sample location problem In: Nonparametric statistical methods. New York, NY: Wiley, 1973; 67-82. Google Scholar
21 Hollander M, Wolfe DA. The one-sample location problem In: Nonparametric statistical methods. New York, NY: Wiley, 1973; 26-64. Google Scholar
22 Shetty AN, Bis KG, Kirsch M, Weintraub J, Laub G. Contrast-enhanced breath-hold three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography in the evaluation of renal arteries: optimization of technique and pitfalls. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12:912-923. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
23 Mallouhi A, Schocke M, Judmaier W, et al. 3D MR angiography of renal arteries: comparison of volume rendering and maximum intensity projection algorithms. Radiology 2002; 223:509-516. Link, Google Scholar
24 Jeremias A, Huegel H, Lee DP, et al. Spatial orientation of atherosclerotic plaque in non-branching coronary artery segments. Atherosclerosis 2000; 152:209-215. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
25 Griswold MA, Kannengiesser S, Heidemann RM, Wang J, Jakob PM. Field-of-view limitations in parallel imaging. Magn Reson Med 2004; 52:1118-1126. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
26 Meissner OA, Rieger J, Rieber J, et al. High-resolution MR imaging of human atherosclerotic femoral arteries in vivo: validation with intravascular ultrasound. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14:227-231. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
27 Blum U, Krumme B, Flugel P, et al. Treatment of ostial renal-artery stenoses with vascular endoprostheses after unsuccessful balloon angioplasty. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:459-465. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28 Vasbinder GB, Maki JH, Nijenhuis RJ, et al. Motion of the distal renal artery during three-dimensional contrast-enhanced breath-hold MRA. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16:685-696. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
29 Cluzel P, Raynaud A, Beyssen B, Pagny JY, Gaux JC. Stenoses of renal branch arteries in fibromuscular dysplasia: results of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Radiology 1994; 193:227-232. Link, Google Scholar
30 Paul JF, Cherrak I, Jaulent MC, et al. Interobserver variability in the interpretation of renal digital subtraction angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173:1285-1288. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
31 van Jaarsveld BC, Pieterman H, van Dijk LC, et al. Inter-observer variability in the angiographic assessment of renal artery stenosis. DRASTIC study group. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative. J Hypertens 1999; 17:1731-1736. Google Scholar
32 Wasser MN, Westenberg J, van der Hulst VP, et al. Hemodynamic significance of renal artery stenosis: digital subtraction angiography versus systolically gated three-dimensional phase-contrast MR angiography. Radiology 1997; 202:333- 338. Link, Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: May 2005

Vol. 235, No. 2

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download