Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doppler
Doppler
Doppler
Method of Method
Spir
Author analysis of of DS
N % al
[Ref.] spiral comparis A
CTA
CTA on
Rubinet 70
31 62 14 MIP cAng 93 83 — — 11 11
al 55
Rubinet 70
31 62 14 SSD cAng 59 82 — — — —
al 55
Olbricht AX,MIP,S
62 157 66 iaDSA <50 98 94 — — — —
et al 56 SD
Olbricht AX,MIP,S 50
62 157 66 iaDSA 95 93 — — — —
et al 56 SD
Elkohen AX,MIP,S 50
50 131 16 iaDSA 88 98 88 98 32 25a
et al 57 SD
Prokope AX,MIP,S 50
80 198 117 iaDSA 99 93 88 97 30 30
t al 58 SD
Prokope AX,MIP,S
80 198 117 iaDSA <50 95 95 95 91 — —
t al 58 SD
Kaateee 50
71 166 122 AX,MIP iaDSA 96 96 96 96 24 24
t al 59
Kaateee
71 166 122 AX,MIP iaDSA <50 92 98 87 99 — —
t al 59
Abbreviations are: Spiral CTA, spiral CT angiography; DSA, digital subtraction angiography; cAng, conventional
angiography; iaDSA, intraarterial DSA; AX, transaxial analysis; MIP, maximum intensity projection; SSD, shaded surface
display.
a
7 accessory arteries outside the scan area
Method Method
Author of of An MR
N %
[Ref.] analysis comparis g A
of MRA on
Positive Negative
Degree of Sensitivit
Patients N Arteries N Specificity predictive predictive
stenosis y
value value
Stavros et al 40
30 26 — 32 60 95 97 92 98
Kliewer et 80
23 23 — 28 66 67 — —
al41
Schwerk et
53 19 — 19 >50 82 92 — —
al 42
Olin et al 43 — — 63 124 60 98 98 99 97
Nazzal et al 48
— — 70 73 50 89 /63
h i
92 /98
h i
85 /91
h i
94h/87i
a
Abbreviations: EH, essential hypertension; RAS, renal artery stenosis
b
Technical failures in 15 of 61 patients
c
Technical failures in 5 of 57 patients
d
Test parameter was peak systolic velocity in the renal artery
e
Test parameter was renal/aortic ratio
f
Without ultrasound contrast enhancement
g
With ultrasound enhancement
h
Test parameter was acceleration index
i
Test parameter was acceleration time