Stacul F, Gava S, Belgrano M, Cernic S, Pagnan L, Pozzi Mucelli F, Cova M A
U.C.O. di Radiologia, Università degli Studi, Ospedale di Cattinara, Strada di Fiume 447, 34149 Trieste, Italy.
Radiol Med. 2008 Jun;113(4):529-46. doi: 10.1007/s11547-008-0270-9. Epub 2008 May 15.
This study was undertaken to evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) in detecting renal artery stenosis using intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the gold standard.
Thirty-five consecutive patients with possible renovascular hypertension were prospectively studied; 26 of them underwent both MRA and DSA. In these 26 cases, two readers assessed the number of renal arteries, the presence of stenoses and their degree. Results were compared with DSA, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of MRA were determined. Interobserver variability was also calculated.
DSA showed 51 main renal arteries (one patient had a single kidney) and six accessory arteries (total number of arteries 57) in the 26 patients considered. Both MRA readers detected all of the 51 main renal arteries and only one accessory vessel. When the presence of stenosis was considered, the readers' results, respectively, were as follows: sensitivity 77% and 72%, specificity 69% and 69%, PPV 86% and 85%, NPV 55% and 50% and diagnostic accuracy 75% and 71%. When the detection of significant stenosis was considered, the results, respectively, were: sensitivity 83% and 83%, specificity 73% and 78%, PPV 60% and 65%, NPV 90% and 91%, and diagnostic accuracy 76% and 80%. Interobserver variation was good when considering stenosis detection (kappa=0.69) and excellent when considering detection of significant stenosis (kappa=0.85).
MRA results do not appear as positive as in the majority of papers in the literature. Multiple reasons can probably be invoked to explain this difference. The mean age of our patients, higher than in many other studies, should be noted and may have accounted for their possible poor cooperation. Moreover, all of the missed significant stenoses were distally located, and therefore, the failure to detect them might be related to the suboptimal spatial resolution of MRA. Nevertheless, MRA showed a high NPV for detecting significant stenoses, a finding of considerable clinical relevance in that it allows patients with normal MRA findings to be spared additional more invasive procedures.
本研究旨在以动脉数字减影血管造影(DSA)作为金标准,评估对比增强磁共振血管造影(CE-MRA)检测肾动脉狭窄的准确性。
对35例连续的可能患有肾血管性高血压的患者进行前瞻性研究;其中26例患者同时接受了MRA和DSA检查。在这26例病例中,两名阅片者评估了肾动脉数量、狭窄的存在及其程度。将结果与DSA进行比较,并确定MRA的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和诊断准确性。还计算了观察者间的变异性。
DSA显示,在纳入研究的26例患者中,共有51条主肾动脉(1例患者为单肾)和6条副肾动脉(动脉总数为57条)。两位MRA阅片者均检测到了所有51条主肾动脉,仅检测到1条副肾动脉。在考虑狭窄存在时,阅片者的结果分别如下:敏感性为77%和72%,特异性为69%和69%,PPV为86%和85%,NPV为55%和50%,诊断准确性为75%和71%。在考虑检测重度狭窄时,结果分别为:敏感性为83%和83%,特异性为73%和78%,PPV为60%和65%,NPV为90%和91%,诊断准确性为76%和80%。在考虑狭窄检测时,观察者间变异性良好(kappa=0.69);在考虑重度狭窄检测时,观察者间变异性优秀(kappa=0.85)。
MRA的结果似乎不如文献中大多数论文报道的那样乐观。可能有多种原因可以解释这种差异。应注意到,我们患者的平均年龄高于许多其他研究,这可能是他们配合不佳的原因。此外,所有漏诊的重度狭窄均位于远端,因此,未能检测到这些狭窄可能与MRA欠佳的空间分辨率有关。尽管如此,MRA在检测重度狭窄方面显示出较高的NPV,这一发现具有相当大的临床意义,因为它可使MRA结果正常的患者避免接受更多有创性检查。