Suppr超能文献

比较对比增强计算机断层血管造影术和钆增强磁共振血管造影术在评估具有血流动力学意义的移植肾动脉狭窄方面的诊断准确性。

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic angiography and gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the assessment of hemodynamically significant transplant renal artery stenosis.

作者信息

Gaddikeri Santhosh, Mitsumori Lee, Vaidya Sandeep, Hippe Daniel S, Bhargava Puneet, Dighe Manjiri K

机构信息

Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

出版信息

Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2014 Jul-Aug;43(4):162-8. doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2014.03.001.

Abstract

To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for the assessment of hemodynamically significant transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS). After institutional review board approval, records of 27 patients with TRAS confirmed on digital subtraction angiography (DSA) were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 13 patients had MRA and 14 had CTA before DSA. Two board-certified fellowship-trained radiologists, one each from interventional radiology and body imaging blindly reviewed the DSA and CTA or MRA data, respectively. Sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MRA and CTA were estimated using 50% stenosis as the detection threshold for significant TRAS. These parameters were compared between modalities using the Fisher exact test. Bias between MRA or CTA imaging and DSA was tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Two patients were excluded from the MRA group owing to susceptibility artifacts obscuring the TRAS. The correlation between MRA and DSA measurements of stenosis was r = 0.57 (95% CI:-0.02, 0.87; P = 0.052) and between CTA and DSA measurements was r = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.87; P = 0.015); the difference between the 2 techniques was not significant (P = 0.7). Both imaging modalities tended to underestimate the degree of stenosis when compared with DSA. MRA group (SN and SP: 56% and 100%, respectively) and CTA group (SN and SP: 81% and 67%, respectively). There were no significant differences in detection performance between modalities (P>0.3 for all measures). We did not find that either modality had any advantage over the other in terms of measuring or detecting significant stenosis. Accordingly, MRA may be preferred over CTA after positive color Doppler ultrasound screening when not contraindicated owing to lack of ionizing radiation or nephrotoxic iodinated contrast. However, susceptibility of artifacts owing to surgical clips at the anastomosis may limit diagnostic utility of MRA as found in 2 of 13 patients. Trend towards no significant difference between the CTA and enhanced MRA in the detection of hemodynamically significant TRAS.

摘要

比较对比增强计算机断层血管造影(CTA)和钆增强磁共振血管造影(MRA)对血流动力学显著的移植肾动脉狭窄(TRAS)的诊断准确性。经机构审查委员会批准,回顾性分析27例经数字减影血管造影(DSA)确诊为TRAS患者的记录。共有13例患者在DSA检查前行MRA检查,14例患者行CTA检查。两名经过专科培训并获得委员会认证的放射科医生,分别来自介入放射学和体部影像专业,对DSA及CTA或MRA数据进行盲法评估。以50%狭窄作为显著TRAS的检测阈值,计算MRA和CTA的敏感度(SN)、特异度(SP)、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。采用Fisher精确检验比较两种检查方法的上述参数。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验检测MRA或CTA成像与DSA之间的偏差。MRA组有2例患者因伪影干扰TRAS被排除。MRA与DSA测量的狭窄程度之间的相关性r = 0.57(95%CI:-0.02,0.87;P = 0.052),CTA与DSA测量的相关性r = 0.63(95%CI:0.14,0.87;P = 0.015);两种技术之间的差异无统计学意义(P = 0.7)。与DSA相比,两种成像方法均倾向于低估狭窄程度。MRA组(SN和SP分别为56%和100%)和CTA组(SN和SP分别为81%和67%)。两种检查方法在检测效能上无显著差异(所有测量指标P>0.3)。在测量或检测显著狭窄方面,我们未发现一种检查方法优于另一种。因此,在彩色多普勒超声筛查阳性后,若没有因缺乏电离辐射或肾毒性碘化造影剂导致的禁忌证,MRA可能比CTA更受青睐。然而,如13例患者中有2例所示,吻合口处手术夹导致的伪影敏感性可能会限制MRA的诊断效用。CTA和增强MRA在检测血流动力学显著的TRAS方面无显著差异的趋势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验