Evaluation of renal artery stenosis with hemodynamic parameters of Doppler sonography

Article Outline

• Abstract
• Materials and methods
• Results
  • Arteriographic findings
  • Doppler sonographic findings
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Author contributions
• Acknowledgment
• References
• Copyright

Objective

The purpose of this study was to determine the values of the hemodynamic parameters of Doppler sonography in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis (RAS) (diameter reduction ≥50%) and to investigate their possible influencing factors.

Methods

Five Doppler parameters, including renal peak systolic velocity (RPSV), renal-aortic ratio (RAR), renal-renal ratio (RRR), renal-segmental ratio (RSR), and renal-interlobar ratio (RIR), were measured in 81 patients before arteriography. Arteries with ≥50% diameter reduction were considered stenosed at renal arteriography. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to determine the optimal parameters. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy at various threshold values were calculated.

Results

Sixteen accessory renal arteries (15 normal, one mild stenosis) were identified at arteriography. Of the 153 main renal arteries demonstrated at arteriography, 79 were normal or demonstrated stenosis <50%, 68 demonstrated moderate stenosis (50%-99%), and 6 demonstrated total occlusion. Doppler sonographic examination was technically successful in 91.7% (154/168) of main and accessory renal arteries. The optimal threshold values of RPSV, RAR, RRR, RSR, and RIR were 170 cm/s, 2.3, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.5, respectively. The parameters RPSV, RSR, and RIR showed good diagnostic results with accuracies equal to or greater than 88%, whereas RAR and RRR presented a sensitivity of only 76.47%. The diagnostic accuracies of RPSV, RAR, and RRR were approximately 3% higher after exclusion of the eight patients with abdominal aorta stenosis.

Conclusion

It should be feasible and necessary to measure three representative hemodynamic parameters (RAR, RPSV, and RIR or RSR) in the diagnosis of ≥50% RAS. The PSVs in the abdominal aorta and renal artery can be affected by factors other than RAS, which may decrease the accuracy of RAR. However, post-PSV ratios are minimally affected by PSV in the abdominal aorta or by an equal proportional change in PSVs in the renal artery trunk and its intrarenal renal arteries; therefore, use of post-PSV ratios dramatically overcomes some limitations of RAR.

Studies have shown that renal peak systolic velocity (RPSV) is one of the best Doppler parameters in the diagnosis of hemodynamically important renal artery stenosis (RAS).¹, ², ³ However, RPSV at the stenotic site can be affected by the conditions of arteries upstream or downstream of a stenosis; in addition, interindividual variation in RPSV and different examination approaches can also decrease its diagnostic efficiency. Therefore, elevated RPSV at the stenotic site is not adequate for the diagnosis of RAS.⁴, ⁵, ⁶ Velocity ratio parameters have been considered as alternative indicators that may overcome some limitations of RPSV.¹, ³, ⁴ Renal-aortic ratio (RAR), a ratio of the PSV in the renal artery to that in the aorta, has been widely reported; however, the diagnostic efficiency ranged from series to series, with wide threshold values from 1.2 to 3.5.¹, ⁴, ⁸, ¹⁰, ¹¹, ¹² For identification of RAS ≥50%, de Oliveira et al¹ reported that renal-segmental ratio (RSR), a ratio of the PSV in the renal artery to that in the segmental artery, was the best parameter (sensitivity, 93.33%; specificity, 89.47%). Our previous study⁴ found that the renal-interlobar ratio (RIR), a ratio of the PSV in the renal artery to that in the interlobar artery, was most valuable (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 88%), and Chain et al³ proposed that renal-renal ratio (RRR) was a valuable parameter (sensitivity, 97%; specificity, 96%). Up to now five velocity parameters (RPSV, RAR, RRR, RSR, and RIR) have been reported for the detection of RAS; however, only three or less of them were compared in the same study group. In this study, we will evaluate the values of all five parameters in the diagnosis of hemodynamically important RAS in the same patient group and investigate factors that possibly influence these parameters.

Back to Article Outline

Materials and methods 

From August 2003 to August 2007, 81 consecutive patients (including one left single kidney) were prospectively evaluated by color Doppler sonography (CDS) and were referred afterwards to renal arteriography within 3 months of CDS. Both examinations were blinded to the angiographic findings at the time of Doppler sonography. The inclusion criteria for renal arteriography were clinically suspected renovascular hypertension (treatment-resistant hypertension, unexplained deterioration of renal function, flash pulmonary edema, or paroxysmal hypertension). The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee, and all patients signed an informed consent form before participation in the study. All RAS patients whose lesions involved other renal arteries except for the main renal artery trunk were excluded, including two cases of stenosis of primary branches of unilateral main renal artery, one case of stenoses of bilateral intrarenal renal arteries, and one case of stenosis of the main renal artery trunk and its intrarenal renal branches. Therefore the study group was composed of the remaining 153 main renal arteries in 77 patients, including 30 men and 47 women with an average age of 47 years (range, 15-79 years).

CDS studies were performed with LOGIQ 9 (GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis) and IU22 (Philips Medical Systems, Bothell, Wash). A 3.5- or 5.0-MHz convex transducer was used. The angle of insonation was set at 60 degrees or less, and the smallest possible Doppler angle was achieved by adjusting scanning sections to gain a more substantial PSV. The sample gate was placed in the center of the arterial lumen with a width of 1 to 3 mm. The entire scanning was performed as follows: First, the PSV in the abdominal aorta was recorded at the level of 1 cm below the origin of the superior mesenteric artery. Second, Doppler traces were obtained from the proximal, middle, and distal segments of each renal artery by flank coronal scanning for bilateral renal arteries or right intercostal or subcostal transverse scanning for the right renal artery when possible. If these scanning methods cannot produce acceptable measurements, transverse scanning of the mesogastric-epigastric area should be used. The fastest renal PSV acquired in these spectral traces were recorded and selected to calculate RRR, RAR, RSR and RIR. For RAS in the proximal or middle segment of the renal artery, RRR was defined as the ratio between the PSV in the proximal or middle segment and the PSV in the distal segment, whereas for RAS in the distal segment of the renal artery, RRR was the ratio between the PSV in the distal and the PSV in the proximal segment. Finally, Doppler spectra were elicited in the upper-, middle- and lower-pole segmental and interlobar renal arteries by flank coronal scanning. If no significant difference was found in the waveforms of early systole among the three sites, PSV, acceleration index, acceleration time, and resistive index of the middle pole were recorded for calculation of RSR and RIR. If the waveforms were significantly different, the one with the most marked slope was selected for recording of the parameters. All patients were scanned by experienced physicians who were proficient in examination and interpretation of vascular sonography.

Successful detection was defined as follows: Continuous color signals were displayed in the lumen of the extrarenal renal artery, and favorable Doppler spectra were detected in each segment unless the artery was occluded. Considering the fact that those additional parameters might have potential value to diagnose mild RAS, we adopted other researchers' method to investigate ≥50% RAS.¹, ¹³, ¹⁴

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed to determine the optimal parameters. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and accuracy at various threshold values were then calculated, and the best threshold value was determined with the maximum sum of sensitivity and specificity. For analysis of the differences between two parameters, if equal variance was assumed, a t test was used; otherwise, a Kruskal-Wallis test was adopted. The values were expressed as means ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 11.0 software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill).

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Arteriographic findings 

Sixteen accessory renal arteries (1 mild stenosis, 15 normal) were identified at arteriography. Of the 153 main renal arteries demonstrated at arteriography, 79 were normal or demonstrated stenosis <50%, 68 demonstrated moderate stenosis (50%-99%), and 6 demonstrated total occlusion. Seventeen (22%) patients had bilateral RAS, 40 (52%) patients had unilateral RAS ≥50%, and the remaining 20 (26%) patients had normal findings or unimportant stenosis (<50%). Of the 68 stenosed main renal arteries (diameter reduction, 50%-99%), 40 were caused by atherosclerosis, 17 by Takayasu arteritis, nine by fibromuscular dysplasia, and two by pheochromocytoma and polyarteritis nodosa, respectively; 52 stenosed lesions were detected in the proximal segment of the renal artery, four were in the middle segment, four in the distal segment, six in both proximal and middle segments, and two in both middle and distal segments. Of the six occlusive renal arteries, two were caused by atherosclerosis, three by Takayasu arteritis, and one by trauma. Abdominal aorta stenosis in eight patients was identified at or superior to the level of the origin of renal arteries, including two mild stenoses and six moderate or severe ones. Seven of these cases were caused by Takayasu arteritis and one by atherosclerosis. Four renal arteries in four patients showed tortuousness on arteriograms, two of which were accompanied by stenosis.

Doppler sonographic findings 

Among the 153 main renal arteries revealed at arteriography, the trunks of two main renal arteries with total occlusion were not detected by CDS, but the typical tardus-parvus waveforms of the intrarenal arteries indicated a highly severe stenosis or total occlusion. Of the 16 accessory renal arteries, 13 were not found by CDS. The remaining 154 ones were adequately examined by CDS with a technical success rate of 91.7% (154/168). A total of 150 arteries were subjected to statistical analysis; the 6 occlusive arteries were excluded. Compared with the reference standard of arteriographic results, those 150 renal arteries were classified into three groups according to the percentage of diameter reduction (0-49%, 50%-69%, and 70%-99%). The statistical results are shown in Table I. When parameters such as RPSV, RRR, RSR, and RIR, taken from three groups of mild, moderate, and severe stenosis, were compared with each another, statistically significant differences were found (P < .05). No difference in RAR was found between the moderate and severe groups (P = .347). However, a remarkably statistically significant difference in RAR was found between the mild and moderate groups and between the mild and severe groups (P < .005).

Table I. Statistical results of hemodynamic parameters between stenotic groups

Parameters	Stenotic degree (%)			P by stenotic degree
	0-49 (n = 82)	50-69 (n = 12)	70-99 (n = 56)	0-49 vs 50-69	0-49 vs 70-99	50-69 vs 70-99
RPSV (cm/s)	116.62±56.86	233.42±107.5	310.20±110.4	<.001	<.001	<.05
RAR	1.50±0.85	3.21±1.87	4.07±2.2	<.005	<.001	.347
RRR	1.41±0.66	2.69±1.74	4.84±3.15	<.005	<.001	<.05
RSR	2.64±1.16	5.13±2.08	10.81±7.42	<.001	<.0005	<.005
RIR	3.76±1.85	8.18±4.31	16.51±12.91	<.001	<.001	<.05

RPSV, Renal peak systolic velocity; RAR, renal-aortic ratio; RRR, renal-renal ratio; RSR, renal-segmental ratio; RIR, renal-interlobar ratio.

The Kruskal-Wallis test was used; n indicates the number of arteries in each group; the total number analyzed was 150.

The ROC curve analyses for RAS ≥50% showed that the areas under the curve (AUCs) for RPSV, RAR, RRR, RSR, and RIR were 0.92, 0.87, 0.90, 0.93, and 0.94, respectively (when the largest possible area was defined as 1), and the optimal threshold values of the five parameters were 170 cm/s, 2.3, 2.0, 4.0, and 5.5, respectively. The diagnostic efficiency of the five parameters at their optimal threshold values is shown in Table II. Statistical analysis showed that the combination of PSV > 190 cm/s and RSR > 5.0 was the best one, with a sensitivity of 89.71% and a specificity of 91.46%, which were the same as the highest sensitivity and specificity achieved by the single parameters. Because abdominal aorta stenosis might markedly affect the hemodynamics of renal arteries, eight patients with abdominal aorta stenosis were excluded from statistical analysis. The new AUCs for the five parameters were 0.94, 0.90, 0.93, 0.94, and 0.94, respectively, and those for RPSV, RSR, and RIR were equally high. No significant differences were found in the efficiency of the five parameters before and after exclusion of the eight patients with abdominal aorta stenosis. The efficiencies of all five parameters, however, were affected to a small degree by abdominal aorta stenosis, especially for RPSV, RAR, and RRR, whose accuracies were approximately 3% higher after exclusion of the eight patients with abdominal aorta stenosis.

Table II. Detection of RAS^⁎ using hemodynamic parameters at the optimal threshold values

THR, Optimal threshold value for each parameter; SEN, sensitivity; SPE, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; ACC, accuracy; RPSV, renal peak systolic velocity; RAR, renal-aortic ratio; RRR, renal-renal ratio; RSR, renal-segmental ratio; RIR, renal-interlobar ratio.

The total number analyzed was 150.

When RPSV >170 cm/s was applied to diagnose ≥50% RAS, seven renal arteries with false-negative findings and eight with false-positive findings were noted. Of the seven renal arteries with false-negative findings, three had moderate stenosis (diameter reduction, 50%-60%), and the other four showed severe stenosis (three with >95% diameter reduction and one with 85% diameter reduction). One artery with 60% stenosis was detected by RAR (3.2); one with 85% stenosis was identified by RAR (2.5), RRR (2.4), and RIR (6.9); and the other with ≥95% stenosis had a positive RIR (6.8). However, the remaining four arteries (two with >95% diameter reduction and two with 50% diameter reduction) were not identified by the other four hemodynamic parameters. Among the eight renal arteries with false-positive findings, three had renal artery atherosclerosis, with a diameter reduction of 20%, 30%, and 30% accompanied by a tortuous course, respectively. The remaining five renal arteries had abdominal aorta stenosis caused by Takayasu arteritis. Of the three renal arteries with atherosclerosis, the tortuous renal artery had false-positive findings for the other four parameters. For the renal artery with a diameter reduction of 20%, RAR was significantly greater than the threshold value, RIR was a little greater than the threshold value, and RRR and RSR were negative. For the remaining renal artery, however, the other four parameters were in normal ranges. Of the five renal arteries accompanied by abdominal aorta stenosis, RAR was less than 2.3 for all of the arteries, whereas RRR, RIR, and RSR correctly diagnosed four, three, and two renal arteries, respectively.

As shown in Table II, RAR had the worst diagnostic efficiency among the five parameters. Even when the optimal threshold values were applied in the diagnosis of RAS ≥50%, the false-negative results occurred in 16 renal arteries and false-positive results in nine renal arteries. Among the 16 renal arteries with false-negative findings, 13 renal arteries had abdominal aorta PSVs > 100 cm/s, two renal arteries had severe RAS (Fig), and the remaining renal artery had 50% diameter reduction; among them 12 renal arteries were correctly diagnosed by RIR. Of the nine renal arteries with false-positive findings, two were related to the tortuous renal artery, the other seven had PSV < 52 cm/s in the abdominal aorta, PSV more than 100 cm/s in the renal artery (range, 103-288 cm/s; average, 143 cm/s), and higher RI in the interlobar renal artery (range, 0.66-0.91; average, 0.78.) Other additional parameters correctly diagnosed seven of the nine renal arteries diagnosed as false positive by RAR.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig. 

  A 66-year-old male patient with severe stenosis of the proximal segment of the right main renal artery. A, The renal peak systolic velocity (PSV) at the stenotic site = 246 cm/s (positive); the renal-aortic ratio = 2.1 (false negative). B, The PSV in the distal segment of the right main renal artery = 121 cm/s; the renal-renal ratio = 2 (positive). C, Spectral analysis of the interlobar artery shows that its PSV = 44 cm/s and the renal-interlobar ratio = 5.6 (positive). No obvious tardus-parvus waveform is observed. D, Arteriography shows a severe stenosis (arrow) in the proximal segment of the right renal artery afterwards.

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

According to the hemodynamic theory of arterial stenosis, elevated RPSV at the stenotic area is positively correlated with the severity of RAS; therefore, compared with indirect parameters, hemodynamic parameters reflecting the elevated RPSV at the stenotic area and its derivative indices such as RAR should be the most sensitive in the diagnosis of a hemodynamically important RAS. Meanwhile, in light of the influence of the jet flow from the stenotic site on the arteries downstream of the stenosis, several post-PSV ratio parameters (RRR, RSR, and RIR) have been introduced according to the levels of the arteries downstream of the stenosis. On the basis of these considerations, we believe that the five hemodynamic parameters (RPSV, RAR, RRR, RSR, and RIR) may comprehensively reflect the hemodynamic changes in RAS.

Our findings indicate that the post-PSV ratios, especially RSR and RIR, were useful indicators in the detection of a hemodynamically important RAS, and that their diagnostic accuracies depend on the following three aspects.

First, does the PSV at the stenotic area reversely correlate with the PSV in the arteries downstream of the stenosis? Such change is not obvious enough in some severe and moderate RAS; consequently, these post-PSV ratios may show false-negative results. In contrast, when the abdominal aorta is stenotic or the renal artery is torturous, the PSV in the renal artery trunk increases,⁴, ⁶, ⁷ whereas the PSVs in its intrarenal renal arteries decrease, which may result in false-positive results.

Second, what is the positional correlation between the levels of the arteries downstream of a stenosis selected for constitution of a post-PSV ratio and the jet flow from the stenotic site? The main difference among the three post-PSV ratios is the level of arteries downstream of a stenosis selected for calculation of a specific post-PSV ratio, which may explain their diagnostic differences. A stable decrease in the PSV in the arteries downstream of a stenosis can be obtained after the jet flow disappears, and the post-PSV ratios based on such PSV can reliably reflect the upstream RAS. However, false-negative results are still possible when the unstable jet flow still exists at the site where the PSV used in the calculation of a post-PSV ratio is obtained.⁴ In this study, we analyzed the threshold values of RSR and RIR after exclusion of RAS values in the middle and distal segments. As a result, the best threshold value of RSR changed from 4.0 to 5.0, whereas the best threshold value of RIR remained the same, demonstrating that, compared with RIR, RSR is influenced more dramatically by the location of RAS. Chain et al³ defined RRR as the ratio between the PSV in the proximal or middle segment of the renal artery and the PSV measured in the distal segment of the renal artery. In our study, we followed this same definition of RRR when stenosis happened in the proximal or middle segment. However, when stenosis was located in the distal segment, we defined RRR as the ratio between the PSV in the distal segment of the renal artery and the PSV in the proximal segment of the renal artery. This definition allows us to still use this parameter when a stenosis is located in the distal segment. According to our observation, for the middle segmental RAS, the RRR as defined by Chain et al obviously will be influenced by the jet flow and will result in false-negative findings, whereas our new definition of RRR can totally avoid such influence. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to use the proximal renal artery PSV instead of the distal renal artery PSV to calculate RRR for the middle segment of RAS.

Finally, how does the flow of intrarenal renal vessels affect the arterial blood flow downstream of a stenosis selected for constitution of a post-PSV ratio? The renal artery is divided into more branches at its distal end, which means the flow velocity at the distal end will be influenced more obviously by the peripheral arteries or arteriolae. Therefore, compared with the segmental renal artery PSV, the interlobar renal artery PSV is influenced more remarkably by the peripheral arteries or arteriolae. The diagnostic accuracy of RIR, or even RSR, may dramatically decrease when some diseases such as diabetes or atherosclerosis bring an unequal proportional change in the PSVs in the renal artery trunk and its intrarenal renal arteries. Nevertheless, clinical renal artery resistance, hypertension, and renal dysfunction often result in an equal proportional change in PSVs in the renal artery trunk and its intrarenal renal arteries. Under such conditions, we conclude that the influence of these factors on RIR and RSR will be relatively slight.

In our study, according to the AUCs and the diagnostic efficiency of the hemodynamic parameters, RPSV, RSR, and RIR were the best parameters for the diagnosis of ≥50% RAS, whereas the sensitivities of both RAR and RRR were not optimal. When the threshold value of RSR was 4 or 5, the sums of the sensitivity and specificity values were similar, and the diagnostic values were also comparable. Therefore, the best threshold value of RSR in our study was quite similar to the results reported previously.¹ The best threshold value of RIR was 5 or 5.5 in this series, which was very similar to the results that we reported previously.⁴ However, when the other three parameters were used to diagnose the same degree of RAS (diameter reduction ≥50%), wider threshold values of the same parameter have been established in different series. The best threshold value of RPSV in our study was 170 cm/s, which was close to the median of the threshold range (150-200 cm/s) according to the literature.³, ¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵ The best threshold value of RAR was 2.3, which was also the median of the threshold range (1.2-3.5) reported.¹, ³, ⁴, ⁸, ¹⁴, ¹⁶ Chain et al³ reported that the best threshold value of RRR was 2.7, which was much higher than our value of 2; meanwhile, the diagnostic efficiency (sensitivity, 97%; specificity, 96%) in their study was remarkably superior to the results in our study. The reasons for those differences could be (1) different composition of the study group; (2) differences in CDS detection¹²; and (3) difference in the degree of RAS from the angiography.¹⁶

As seen from our findings and published literature,⁴, ⁷, ⁹, ¹¹, ¹⁴, ¹⁵ although the combination of two of these parameters did not improve diagnostic accuracy, we should focus on three representative hemodynamic parameters (RAR, RPSV, RIR or RSR), because they reflect different aspects of the hemodynamic changes in RAS. In this study, RPSV achieved the same if not better diagnostic efficiency as RSR or RIR. For the diagnosis of ≥50% RAS, RPSV alone seems adequate; however, it is markedly affected by individual variation and cannot reflect the dynamic changes in flow velocity. Therefore, there is some disagreement on the diagnostic values of RPSV.¹, ³, ⁴, ⁸, ⁹, ¹⁷, ¹⁸ Some authors reported that RAR was an important parameter to diagnose RAS, because it helps overcome the limitation of individual variation of RPSV; however, in recent years, research on post-PSV ratios has highlighted limitations of RAR in the diagnosis of RAS. Theoretically, both RAR and post-PSV ratios reflect the dynamic changes in flow velocity, which should have no individual variation; however, all the factors that non-proportionally influence the renal artery or abdominal aorta PSV, especially those that cause contradictory changes in these two PSVs, will compromise the accuracy of a diagnosis based on RAR.¹⁰ In contrast, post-PSV ratios are rarely influenced by change in abdominal aorta PSV or by factors such as renal artery resistance, hypertension, and renal dysfunction that cause an equal proportional change in PSVs in the renal artery trunk and its intrarenal renal arteries. Therefore post-RSV ratios will help avoid the misdiagnosis caused by RAR. Nevertheless, it is notable that RAR will help to avoid a false-positive diagnosis caused by other parameters in uncommon situations such as stenosis of the abdominal aorta and other diseases yielding obviously elevated PSV in the intrarenal renal arteries. Therefore, we consider that RAR, RPSV, and RSR or RIR should be measured routinely in clinical practice.

Our study had some limitations. Although RSR and RIR may have some superiority over the conventional parameters on the basis of the hemodynamic theory, studies of the comparison between these parameters and conventional parameters are still limited. To elucidate the pros and cons of these post-PSV ratios, one must explore how a change in the renal artery PSV is affected by RAS and non-RAS factors on the basis of the standard and comparable measurement methods of RPSV. All patients included in our study were Chinese patients, who were relatively thinner than Western people; therefore, it seems difficult to generalize our study findings to overweight people. Finally, the technical success rate in detecting an accessory renal artery was very low (18.9%) in our study as in other reports.⁶, ⁷, ⁹, ¹¹, ¹⁹ However, because the hemodynamic change between the main and accessory RAS values were similar, our study findings can be extended to the diagnosis of accessory RAS.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

It should be feasible and necessary to measure three representative hemodynamic parameters (RAR, RPSV, and RIR or RSR) in the diagnosis of ≥50% RAS. The PSVs in the abdominal aorta and renal artery can be affected by factors other than RAS, which may decrease the accuracy of RAR. However, post-PSV ratios are little affected by PSV in the abdominal aorta or by an equal proportional change in PSVs in the renal artery trunk and its intrarenal renal arteries; therefore, use of post-PSV ratios dramatically overcomes some limitations of RAR. In the detection of RAS, it is helpful to notice the degree and location of stenosis, artery tortuosity, and factors that influence PSVs in the abdominal aorta and renal artery.

Back to Article Outline

Author contributions 

Back to Article Outline

We express our appreciation to Yuan Qiao and Liang-jun Gu for their assistance in reviewing the article.

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Souza de Oliveira IR, Widman A, Molnar LJ, Fukushima JT, Praxedes JN, Cerri GG. Color Doppler ultrasound: a new index improves the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26:41–47
   • View In Article
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (80 KB)
   • CrossRef
2. Landwehr P, Schindler R, Heinrich U, Dölken W, Krahe T, Lackner K. Quantification of vascular stenosis with color Doppler flow imaging: in vitro investigation. Radiol. 1991;178:701–704
   • View In Article
3. Chain S, Luciardi H, Feldman G, Berman S, Herrera RN, Ochoa J, et al. Diagnostic role of new Doppler index in assessment of renal artery stenosis. Cardiovascular Ultrasound. 2006;4:4
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
4. Li JC, Wang L, Jiang YX, Dai Q, Cai S, Lv K, et al. Evaluation of renal artery stenosis with velocity parameters of Doppler sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25:735–742
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
5. Rabbia C, Valpreda S. Duplex scan sonography of renal artery stenosis. Int Angiol. 2003;22:101–115
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
6. Spies KP, Fobbe F, El-Bedewi M, Wolf KJ, Distler A, Schulte KL. Color-coded duplex sonography for noninvasive diagnosis and grading of renal artery stenosis. Am J Hypertens. 1995;8(12 Pt 1):1222–1231
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
7. Nchimi A, Biquet JF, Brisbois D, Reginster P, Bouali K, Saive C, et al. Duplex ultrasound as first-line screening test for patients suspected of renal artery stenosis: prospective evaluation in high-risk group. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1413–1419
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
8. van der Hulst VP, van Baalen J, Kool LS, van Bockel JH, van Erkel AR, Ilgun J, et al. Renal artery stenosis: endovascular flow wire study for validation of Doppler US. Radiology. 1996;200:165–168
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
9. House MK, Dowling RJ, King P, Gibson RN. Using Doppler sonography to reveal renal artery stenosis: an evaluation of optimal imaging parameters. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:761–765
   • View In Article
10. Soares GM, Murphy TP, Singha MS, Parada A, Jaff M. Renal artery duplex ultrasonography as a screening and surveillance tool to detect renal artery stenosis: a comparison with current references standard imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25:293–298
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
11. Conkbayir I, Yücesoy C, Edguer T, Yanik B, Yasar Ayaz U, Hekimoğlu B. Doppler sonography in renal artery stenosis (An evaluation of intrarenal and extrarenal imaging parameters). Clin Imaging. 2003;27:256–260
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (242 KB)
    • CrossRef
12. Napoli V, Pinto S, Bargellini I, Vignali C, Cioni R, Petruzzi P, et al. Duplex ultrasonographic study of the renal arteries before and after renal artery stenting. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:796–803
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
13. Krumme B, Blum U, Schwertfeger E, Flügel P, Höllstin F, Schollmeyer P, et al. Diagnosis of renovascular disease by intra- and extrarenal Doppler scanning. Kidney Int. 1996;50:1288–1292
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
14. Staub D, Canevascini R, Huegli RW, Aschwanden M, Thalhammer C, Imfeld S, et al. Best duplex-sonographic criteria for the assessment of renal artery stenosis—correlation with intra-arterial pressure gradient. Ultraschall Med. 2007;28:45–51
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
15. de Haan MW, Kroon AA, Flobbe K, Kessels AG, Tordoir JH, van Engelshoven JM, et al. Renovascular disease in patients with hypertension: detection with duplex ultrasound. J Hum Hypertens. 2002;16:501–507
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
16. Kawarada O, Yokoi Y, Takemoto K, Morioka N, Nakata S, Shiotani S. The performance of renal duplex ultrasonography for the detection of hemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:311–318
    • View In Article
17. Postma , van Aalen J, de Boo T, Rosenbusch G, Thien T. Doppler ultrasound scanning in the detection of renal artery stenosis in hypertensive patients. Br J Radiol. 1992;65:857–860
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
18. Olin JW, Piedmonte MR, Young JR, DeAnna S, Grubb M, Childs MB. The utility of duplex ultrasound scanning of the renal arteries for diagnosing significant renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:833–838
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
19. Radermacher J, Chavan A, Schaffer J, Stoess B, Vitzthum A, Kliem V, et al. Detection of significant renal artery stenosis with color Doppler sonography: combining extrarenal and intrarenal approaches to minimize technical failure. Clin Nephrol. 2000;53:333–343
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE