Background and purposeAs a non-invasive, side effect-free and cost-effective method, ultrasonography represents the method of choice for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Four different criteria in total, including two direct criteria in peak systolic velocity (PSV) and renal aortic ratio (RAR) and two indirect criteria in resistance index (RI) and acceleration time (AT) for the measurement of relevant renal artery stenosis are described, each demonstrating highly variable accuracy in studies. Furthermore, there is controversy over the degree beyond which stenosis becomes therapeutically relevant and which ultrasound PSV is diagnostically relevant in terms of stenosis grading.Material and methodsThis article gives a critical review based on a selective literature search on measurement methodology and the validity of ultrasound in renal artery stenosis. A critical evaluation of methods and a presentation of measurement principles to establish the most precise measurement method possible compared with the gold standard angiography, as well as an evaluation of the importance of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA).Results and conclusionsThe PSV provides high sensitivity and specificity as a direct measurement method in stenosis detection and grading. Most studies found sensitivities and specificities of 85–90 % for > 50 % stenosis at a PSV > 180–200 cm/s in ROC curve analysis. Other methods, such as the ratio of the PSV in the aorta to the PSV in the renal artery (RAR) or indirect criteria, such as side to side differences in RI (dRI) or AT can be additionally used to improve accuracy. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound improves accuracy by means of echo contrast enhancement. Although in the past only high-grade stenosis was considered relevant for treatment, a drop in pressure of > 20 mmHg in > 50 % stenosis (PSV 180 cm/s) is classified as relevant for increased renin secretion. Stenosis in fibromuscular dysplasia can be reliably graded according to the continuity equation. Although the available studies on the grading of in-stent restenosis are the subject of controversy, there is a tendency to assume higher cut-off values for PSV and RAR. Whilst MRA and CTA demonstrate an accuracy of > 90 %, this is at the cost of possible side effects for patients, particularly in the case of pre-existing renal parenchymal damage.Additional online materialThis article includes two additional video sequences on visualizing renal artery stenosis. This supplemental material can be found under: dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00772-015-0060-3
Background and objectivesThe ideal method for screening investigations is one which is as free as possible from side effects, is easily learnt, and can therefore be broadly used to detect abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) with a high degree of certainty. Although ultrasonography fulfils these criteria, the measurement method is not standardized. Different measurement methods are used in ultrasonography as well as in computed tomography (CT) studies and the measurement method is actually described sufficiently in only 57 % of cases.MethodsThis article provides a critical review of the current literature on measurement methods and the validity of ultrasonography for the determination of aortic diameter, particularly in AAA, and presents the measurement principles for making measurements as precisely as possible.Results and conclusionThe most precise determination of aortic diameter is carried out by electrocardiogram (ECG) gating according to the leading-edge method with orthogonal slicing. Within the framework of screening investigations, sufficient measurement precision can be achieved by adherence to orthogonal slicing. Using these standardized measurement methods, ultrasonography shows valid and reproducible results even compared with CT and is the method of choice in screening investigations for AAA. Electronic Supplementary Material is available for this article at 10.1007/s00772-014-1411-1 and accessible for authorised users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.