Diagnostic Tests for Renal Artery Stenosis in Patients Suspected of Having Renovascular Hypertension

Diagnostic Tests for Renal Artery Stenosis in Patients Suspected of Having Renovascular Hypertension

A Meta-Analysis

From University Hospital of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Abstract

Purpose: To summarize and compare the validity of computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, ultrasonography, captopril renal scintigraphy, and the captopril test for diagnosis of renal artery stenosis in patients suspected of having renovascular hypertension.

Data Sources: For each diagnostic modality, published studies were identified by MEDLINE literature searches.

Study Selection: Original studies were selected if they met the following criteria: 1) suspicion of renovascular hypertension was the indication for the test; 2) intra-arterial x-ray angiography was used as the gold standard; 3) a cutoff point for a positive test result was explicitly defined; and 4) absolute numbers of true-positive, false-negative, true-negative, and false-positive results were available or could be derived from the presented data.

Data Extraction: A standard form was used to extract relevant data.

Data Synthesis: Data on the accuracy of the different diagnostic methods were analyzed and compared by constructing summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and by computing areas under the summary ROC curves.

Results: Although accuracy varied greatly for all diagnostic modalities, summary ROC curves found that computed tomography angiography and gadolinium-enhanced, three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography performed significantly better than the other diagnostic tests.

Conclusions: Computed tomography angiography and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography seem to be preferred in patients referred for evaluation of renovascular hypertension. However, because few studies of these tests have been published, further research is recommended.

Article and Author Information

Grant Support: By the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (OG 97-003).
Requests for Single Reprints: G. Boudewijn C. Vasbinder, MD, Department of Radiology, Box 5800, University Hospital of Maastricht, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands; e-mail, bvas{at}rdia.azm.nl.
Current Author Addresses: Drs. Vasbinder, Nelemans, Kessels, Kroon, de Leeuw, and van Engelshoven: Department of Radiology, Box 5800, University Hospital of Maastricht, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: G.B.C. Vasbinder, P.J. Nelemans, P.W. de Leeuw, J.M.A. van Engelshoven.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: G.B.C. Vasbinder, P.J. Nelemans, J.M.A. van Engelshoven.
Drafting of the article: G.B.C. Vasbinder, P.J. Nelemans, A.A. Kroon.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: G.B.C. Vasbinder, P.J. Nelemans, A.G.H. Kessels, A.A. Kroon, P.W. de Leeuw, J.M.A. van Engelshoven.
Final approval of the article: G.B.C. Vasbinder, P.J. Nelemans, A.G.H. Kessels, A.A. Kroon, P.W. de Leeuw, J.M.A. van Engelshoven.
Provision of study materials or patients: G.B.C. Vasbinder.
Statistical expertise: P.J. Nelemans, A.G.H. Kessels.
Obtaining of funding: J.M.A. van Engelshoven.
Collection and assembly of data: G.B.C. Vasbinder, P.J. Nelemans.