Prospective Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Angiography with Selective Renal Angiography for Living Kidney Donor Assessment
Objectives For years, the reference standard in the evaluation of living donor vascular anatomy has been selective renal angiography (SRA). Because of the potential morbidity associated with SRA, we prospectively evaluated magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the assessment of renal donors. Metho...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2008-03, Vol.71 (3), p.385-389 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 389 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 385 |
| container_title | Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) |
| container_volume | 71 |
| creator | Neville, Christopher House, Andrew A Nguan, Christopher Y Beasley, Kenneth A Peck, David Thain, Lisa M.F Rankin, Richard McAlister, Vivian C Spouge, Alison R Luke, Patrick P.W |
| description | Objectives For years, the reference standard in the evaluation of living donor vascular anatomy has been selective renal angiography (SRA). Because of the potential morbidity associated with SRA, we prospectively evaluated magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the assessment of renal donors. Methods All patients had SRA and 53 renal units were prospectively evaluated by MRA. We used SRA supplemented by findings at donor nephrectomy (DN) as our standard. We defined a positive test as the detection of any abnormality in the number of renal arteries. Results Selective renal angiography yielded a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 95%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 75%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% compared with findings at DN. MRA had a sensitivity of 64%, 88% specificity, 58% PPV, and 90% NPV. MRA correctly identified only 7 of 11 renal units with accessory arteries. MRA also incorrectly identified 5 accessory arteries not present on SRA or DN. Two patients diagnosed with fibromuscular dysplasia by SRA were missed using MRA. Conclusions We have shown that MRA is not capable of replacing SRA as the reference standard in renal donor imaging. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.030 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70401426</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0090429507022807</els_id><sourcerecordid>70401426</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-36666a3249583e86d22d61a10f81fe587ce376c95534c70d107ac8f82bf675173</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkl2L1DAUhoso7rj6E5Tc6F3Hk7RN2htlGD9xRNnV65BNT7sZ26Qm7UjBH2_KFEVvvAq8POeDJydJHlPYUqD8-XE7ede5dt4yABGzLWRwJ9nQgom0qqribrIBqCDNWVVcJA9COAIA51zcTy5omeWM8mqT_PzsXRhQj-aEZO_6QXkTnCWuIR9Va3E0mlxhTJTVSHa2Na71aridyQ8z3pJr7NbaK7Sq-wtonCcHczK2JR9MbXEmr5yN2S4EDKFHOz5M7jWqC_hofS-Tr29ef9m_Sw-f3r7f7w6pzvNyTLO4NVcZy6uizLDkNWM1p4pCU9IGi1JozATXVVFkuRZQUxBKl03JbhouCiqyy-TZue_g3fcJwyh7EzR2nbLopiAF5EBzxiNYnEEdrQSPjRy86ZWfJQW5aJdHuWqXi_Yljtpj3ZN1wHTTY_2navUcgacroIJWXeOjThN-cwwY5GW1bPryzGHUcTLoZdAGo_ra-Cha1s78d5UX_3TQnbEmDv2GM4ajm3z8qCCpDEyCvF5uZDkREMBYCSL7BR_3uZA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70401426</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prospective Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Angiography with Selective Renal Angiography for Living Kidney Donor Assessment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Neville, Christopher ; House, Andrew A ; Nguan, Christopher Y ; Beasley, Kenneth A ; Peck, David ; Thain, Lisa M.F ; Rankin, Richard ; McAlister, Vivian C ; Spouge, Alison R ; Luke, Patrick P.W</creator><creatorcontrib>Neville, Christopher ; House, Andrew A ; Nguan, Christopher Y ; Beasley, Kenneth A ; Peck, David ; Thain, Lisa M.F ; Rankin, Richard ; McAlister, Vivian C ; Spouge, Alison R ; Luke, Patrick P.W</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives For years, the reference standard in the evaluation of living donor vascular anatomy has been selective renal angiography (SRA). Because of the potential morbidity associated with SRA, we prospectively evaluated magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the assessment of renal donors. Methods All patients had SRA and 53 renal units were prospectively evaluated by MRA. We used SRA supplemented by findings at donor nephrectomy (DN) as our standard. We defined a positive test as the detection of any abnormality in the number of renal arteries. Results Selective renal angiography yielded a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 95%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 75%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% compared with findings at DN. MRA had a sensitivity of 64%, 88% specificity, 58% PPV, and 90% NPV. MRA correctly identified only 7 of 11 renal units with accessory arteries. MRA also incorrectly identified 5 accessory arteries not present on SRA or DN. Two patients diagnosed with fibromuscular dysplasia by SRA were missed using MRA. Conclusions We have shown that MRA is not capable of replacing SRA as the reference standard in renal donor imaging.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-4295</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-9995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.030</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18342169</identifier><identifier>CODEN: URGYAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Female ; Humans ; Kidney - blood supply ; Kidney - diagnostic imaging ; Kidney Transplantation ; Living Donors ; Magnetic Resonance Angiography ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases ; Prospective Studies ; Radiography ; Renal Artery - abnormalities ; Renal Artery - diagnostic imaging ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2008-03, Vol.71 (3), p.385-389</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2008 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-36666a3249583e86d22d61a10f81fe587ce376c95534c70d107ac8f82bf675173</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-36666a3249583e86d22d61a10f81fe587ce376c95534c70d107ac8f82bf675173</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.030$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20204897$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18342169$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Neville, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>House, Andrew A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguan, Christopher Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beasley, Kenneth A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peck, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thain, Lisa M.F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rankin, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAlister, Vivian C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spouge, Alison R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luke, Patrick P.W</creatorcontrib><title>Prospective Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Angiography with Selective Renal Angiography for Living Kidney Donor Assessment</title><title>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><description>Objectives For years, the reference standard in the evaluation of living donor vascular anatomy has been selective renal angiography (SRA). Because of the potential morbidity associated with SRA, we prospectively evaluated magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the assessment of renal donors. Methods All patients had SRA and 53 renal units were prospectively evaluated by MRA. We used SRA supplemented by findings at donor nephrectomy (DN) as our standard. We defined a positive test as the detection of any abnormality in the number of renal arteries. Results Selective renal angiography yielded a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 95%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 75%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% compared with findings at DN. MRA had a sensitivity of 64%, 88% specificity, 58% PPV, and 90% NPV. MRA correctly identified only 7 of 11 renal units with accessory arteries. MRA also incorrectly identified 5 accessory arteries not present on SRA or DN. Two patients diagnosed with fibromuscular dysplasia by SRA were missed using MRA. Conclusions We have shown that MRA is not capable of replacing SRA as the reference standard in renal donor imaging.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kidney - blood supply</subject><subject>Kidney - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Kidney Transplantation</subject><subject>Living Donors</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Angiography</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Renal Artery - abnormalities</subject><subject>Renal Artery - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0090-4295</issn><issn>1527-9995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkl2L1DAUhoso7rj6E5Tc6F3Hk7RN2htlGD9xRNnV65BNT7sZ26Qm7UjBH2_KFEVvvAq8POeDJydJHlPYUqD8-XE7ede5dt4yABGzLWRwJ9nQgom0qqribrIBqCDNWVVcJA9COAIA51zcTy5omeWM8mqT_PzsXRhQj-aEZO_6QXkTnCWuIR9Va3E0mlxhTJTVSHa2Na71aridyQ8z3pJr7NbaK7Sq-wtonCcHczK2JR9MbXEmr5yN2S4EDKFHOz5M7jWqC_hofS-Tr29ef9m_Sw-f3r7f7w6pzvNyTLO4NVcZy6uizLDkNWM1p4pCU9IGi1JozATXVVFkuRZQUxBKl03JbhouCiqyy-TZue_g3fcJwyh7EzR2nbLopiAF5EBzxiNYnEEdrQSPjRy86ZWfJQW5aJdHuWqXi_Yljtpj3ZN1wHTTY_2navUcgacroIJWXeOjThN-cwwY5GW1bPryzGHUcTLoZdAGo_ra-Cha1s78d5UX_3TQnbEmDv2GM4ajm3z8qCCpDEyCvF5uZDkREMBYCSL7BR_3uZA</recordid><startdate>20080301</startdate><enddate>20080301</enddate><creator>Neville, Christopher</creator><creator>House, Andrew A</creator><creator>Nguan, Christopher Y</creator><creator>Beasley, Kenneth A</creator><creator>Peck, David</creator><creator>Thain, Lisa M.F</creator><creator>Rankin, Richard</creator><creator>McAlister, Vivian C</creator><creator>Spouge, Alison R</creator><creator>Luke, Patrick P.W</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080301</creationdate><title>Prospective Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Angiography with Selective Renal Angiography for Living Kidney Donor Assessment</title><author>Neville, Christopher ; House, Andrew A ; Nguan, Christopher Y ; Beasley, Kenneth A ; Peck, David ; Thain, Lisa M.F ; Rankin, Richard ; McAlister, Vivian C ; Spouge, Alison R ; Luke, Patrick P.W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-36666a3249583e86d22d61a10f81fe587ce376c95534c70d107ac8f82bf675173</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kidney - blood supply</topic><topic>Kidney - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Kidney Transplantation</topic><topic>Living Donors</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Angiography</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Renal Artery - abnormalities</topic><topic>Renal Artery - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Neville, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>House, Andrew A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguan, Christopher Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beasley, Kenneth A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peck, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thain, Lisa M.F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rankin, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAlister, Vivian C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spouge, Alison R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luke, Patrick P.W</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Neville, Christopher</au><au>House, Andrew A</au><au>Nguan, Christopher Y</au><au>Beasley, Kenneth A</au><au>Peck, David</au><au>Thain, Lisa M.F</au><au>Rankin, Richard</au><au>McAlister, Vivian C</au><au>Spouge, Alison R</au><au>Luke, Patrick P.W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prospective Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Angiography with Selective Renal Angiography for Living Kidney Donor Assessment</atitle><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><date>2008-03-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>385</spage><epage>389</epage><pages>385-389</pages><issn>0090-4295</issn><eissn>1527-9995</eissn><coden>URGYAZ</coden><abstract>Objectives For years, the reference standard in the evaluation of living donor vascular anatomy has been selective renal angiography (SRA). Because of the potential morbidity associated with SRA, we prospectively evaluated magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the assessment of renal donors. Methods All patients had SRA and 53 renal units were prospectively evaluated by MRA. We used SRA supplemented by findings at donor nephrectomy (DN) as our standard. We defined a positive test as the detection of any abnormality in the number of renal arteries. Results Selective renal angiography yielded a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 95%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 75%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% compared with findings at DN. MRA had a sensitivity of 64%, 88% specificity, 58% PPV, and 90% NPV. MRA correctly identified only 7 of 11 renal units with accessory arteries. MRA also incorrectly identified 5 accessory arteries not present on SRA or DN. Two patients diagnosed with fibromuscular dysplasia by SRA were missed using MRA. Conclusions We have shown that MRA is not capable of replacing SRA as the reference standard in renal donor imaging.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>18342169</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.030</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0090-4295 |
| ispartof | Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2008-03, Vol.71 (3), p.385-389 |
| issn | 0090-4295 1527-9995 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70401426 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Female Humans Kidney - blood supply Kidney - diagnostic imaging Kidney Transplantation Living Donors Magnetic Resonance Angiography Medical sciences Middle Aged Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases Prospective Studies Radiography Renal Artery - abnormalities Renal Artery - diagnostic imaging Sensitivity and Specificity Urology |
| title | Prospective Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Angiography with Selective Renal Angiography for Living Kidney Donor Assessment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T21%3A02%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prospective%20Comparison%20of%20Magnetic%20Resonance%20Angiography%20with%20Selective%20Renal%20Angiography%20for%20Living%20Kidney%20Donor%20Assessment&rft.jtitle=Urology%20(Ridgewood,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Neville,%20Christopher&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=385&rft.epage=389&rft.pages=385-389&rft.issn=0090-4295&rft.eissn=1527-9995&rft.coden=URGYAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.030&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70401426%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70401426&rft_id=info:pmid/18342169&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0090429507022807&rfr_iscdi=true |