Multidetector-row CT angiography diagnostic sensitivity in evaluation of renal artery stenosis: Comparison between multiple reconstruction techniques

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 712-716

  Saba, Luca ^a   Caddeo, Giancarlo ^b   Sanfilippo, Roberto ^a   Montisci, Roberto ^a   Mallarini, Giorgio ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAGLIARI   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAGLIARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

MDCT; Renal angiography; Renal artery

Indexed keywords

ANGIOGRAPHY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; VOLUME RENDERING;

INTENSITY VOLUMES; INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT; MAXIMUM INTENSITY PROJECTION; MDCT; MULTIPLANAR RECONSTRUCTION; QUALITY IMAGE; RENAL ANGIOGRAPHY; RENAL ARTERIES; RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS; STENOSIS DEGREES;

IMAGE QUALITY;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; IOPROMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FLOW RATE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY ARTERY STENOSIS; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EID: 34748921716     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/rct.0b013e31802fa903     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Satyapal KS, Haffejee AA, Singh B, et al. Additional renal arteries: incidence and morphometry. Surg Radiol Anat. 2001;23:33-38.
2. Dean RH. Renovascular hypertension: an overview. In: Rutherford RB. ed. Vascular Surgery, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 1989:1211-1218.
3. Kim TS, Chung JW, Park JH, et al. Renal artery evaluation: comparison of spiral CT angiography to intra-arterial DSA. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9:553-559.
4. Beregi JP, Elkohen M, Deklunder G, et al. Helical CT angiography compared with arteriography in the detection of renal artery stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:495-501.
5. Boll DT, Lewin JS, Fleiter TR, et al. Multidetector CT angiography of arterial inflow and runoff in the lower extremities: a challenge in data acquisition and evaluation. J Endovasc Ther. 2004;11:144-151.
6. Boll TD, Bulow H, Blackman KA, et al. MDCT angiography of the spinal vasculature and the artery of Adamkiewicz. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1054-1060.
7. Marcus CD, Ladam-Marcus VJ, Bigot JL, et al. Carotid artery stenosis: evaluation at CT angiography with the volume rendering technique. Radiology. 1999;211:775-780.
8. Corti R, Alerci M, Wyttenbach R, et al. Usefulness of multiplanar reconstructions in evaluation of carotid CT angiography. Radiology. 2003;226:290-291.
9. Cody DD. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT: image processing in CT. Radiographics. 2002;22:1255-1268.
10. Napel S, Rubin GD, Jeffrey RB Jr. STS-MIP: a new reconstruction technique for CT of the chest. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:832-838.
11. Prokop M, Shin HO, Schanz A, et al. Use of maximum intensity projections in CT angiography: a basic review. Radiographics. 1997;17:433-451.
12. Johnson PT, Heath DG, Kuszyk BS, et al. CT angiography with volume rendering: advantages and applications in splanchnic vascular imaging. Radiology. 1996;200:564-568.
13. van de Ven PJ, de Klerk JM, Mertens IJ, et al. Aspirin renography and captopril renography in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1337-1342.
14. Rudnick MR, Bern JS, Cohen RM, et al. Nephrotoxic risks of renal angiography: contrast media associated nephrotoxicity and atheroembolism - a critical review. Am J Kidney Dis. 1994;24:713-727.
15. Schwab SJ, Hlatky MA, Pieper KS, et al. Contrast nephrotoxicity: a randomized controlled trial of nonionic and ionic radiographic contrast agents. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:149-153.
16. Prigent A. The diagnosis of renovascular hypertension: the role of captopril renal scintigraphy and related issues. Eur J Nucl Med. 1993;20:625-644.
17. Gunay EC, Ozturk MH, Orgun EL, et al. Losartan renography for the detection of renal artery stenosis: comparison with captopril renography and evaluation of dose and timing. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1064-1074.
18. Prince MR, Yucel EK, Kaufman JA, et al. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional abdominal MR arteriography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3:877-881.
19. Gilfeather M, Yoon H, Siegelman ES, et al. Renal artery stenosis: evaluation with conventional angiography versus gadolinium enhanced MR angiography. Radiology. 1999;210:367-372.
20. Low RN, Martinez AG, Steinberg SM, et al. Potential renal transplant donors: valuation with gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and MR urography. Radiology. 1998;207:165-172.
21. Mittal TK, Evans C, Perkins T, et al. Renal arteriography using gadolinium enhanced 3D MR angiography - clinical experience with the technique, its limitations and pitfalls. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:495-502.
22. Rubin GD. MDCT: a new era in imaging. Eur Radiol Suppl. 2006;16:D3-D10.
23. Rubin GD, Dake MD, Napel S, et al. Spiral CT of renal artery stenosis: comparison of three dimensional rendering techniques. Radiology. 1994;190:181-189.
24. Km TS, Chung JW, Park JH, et al. Renal artery evaluation: comparison of spiral CT angiography to intra-arterial DSA. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9:553-559.
25. Cody DD. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT: image processing in CT. Radiographics. 2002;22:1255-1268.
26. Napel S, Rubin GD, Jeffrey RB Jr. STS-MIP: a new reconstruction technique for CT of the chest. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:832-838.
27. Prokop M, Shin HO, Schanz A, et al. Use of maximum intensity projections in CT angiography: a basic review. Radiographics. 1997;17:433-451.
28. Johnson PT, Heath DG, Kuszyk BS, et al. CT angiography with volume rendering: advantages and applications in splanchnic vascular imaging. Radiology. 1996;200:564-568.