Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background: Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is a well-tolerated, noninvasive imaging technique. Renal artery stenosis (RAS)—a narrowing of the arteries that supply the kidney—is involved in the cause of renal failure, and its gold-standard method of detection is digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Whether DUS is a suitable alternative to DSA or other angiographic modalities has only been reviewed up to 2005, producing mixed results with studies based on older ultrasound technology without a measurement of study quality. Purpose: To provide an up-to-date review of the diagnostic accuracy of DUS for the diagnosis of RAS in comparison with angiography. Methods: Our registered systematic review (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SE9VN) examined articles post-2005. Studies must have compared RAS diagnosis between DUS and angiography. Sources were searched in November 2022 and included Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Academic Search Premier (1749 citations; final: n = 34; DSA only: n = 9). Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies 2 tool and results are presented narratively. A total of 2968 (1281 females) patients were included. Duplex ultrasound exhibited moderately high agreement with DSA and other well-established angiographic criteria with the existing literature having low risk of bias and low concern for patient applicability. Studies exhibiting low agreement were generally in smaller samples or used unique definitions of stenosis. Conclusions: Improved study reporting, consistent definitions of stenosis, and a common statistical battery are needed.

Keywords

duplex ultrasound renal artery stenosis renal failure computed tomography angiography magnetic resonance angiography

Introduction

The renal system is important for filtering blood, the regulation of arterial blood pressure, and the production of urine. Narrowing of the arteries that supply the kidney, or renal artery stenosis (RAS), can lead to blood pressure dysregulation (ie, hypertension) or renal failure. It has been documented that approximately 24% of adult patients with resistant hypertension also exhibit RAS.¹ Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) using fluoroscopy imaging is the recognized gold standard, but is also the most invasive testing method, requiring sedation, radiation, and radiographic contrast.² Other techniques, such as computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) provide accurate alternatives to DSA,³ but use considerably more contrast (CTA)⁴ and are dependent on the patient’s ability to be still for a prolonged examination period (MRA), respectively. Although an accurate method for identifying RAS, angiography may not be tolerated by all, is relatively costly, and requires specialized personnel and equipment. Therefore, noninvasive and less costly options to identify RAS are warranted.

Duplex ultrasound may be an alternative imaging modality for identifying narrowing of the renal arteries, with DUS parameters, such as peak systolic velocity measurements characteristically high in patients with RAS.⁵ Duplex ultrasound could be used as a relatively affordable, accessible, noninvasive, and safer (ie, absence of ionizing radiation and contrast material) method to assess RAS severity. In some cases, DUS serves as a screening tool for RAS.⁶ However, the evidence base for the efficacy of DUS to detect RAS is inconclusive. A review by Williams et al⁷ summarizing all studies up to 2005 (most articles: 1980-1995) reported inconclusive, mixed evidence for the validity of DUS to detect RAS. Like any technology, DUS imaging has improved decade-to-decade, producing sharper images and increased portability, but our understanding of modern ultrasound in diagnosing RAS is limited. Accordingly, the mixed results from studies primarily conducted 20 to 40 years ago are based on inferior DUS technology, and existing machines provide superior images and thus, a potentially greater ability to detect RAS. In addition, study quality was not assessed in the previous review,⁷ making it difficult to discern whether results are based on low-quality or high-quality evidence. An up-to-date systematic review that evaluates the evidence for modern DUS to predict RAS and provides quality assessments of the included research is needed to better inform imaging practitioners on the utility of DUS in assessing RAS.

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether DUS accurately detects RAS in comparison with angiography. Given the improvements in DUS technology and prior review of the evidence pre-2005,⁷ this review included studies post-2005 only. This review summarized results across studies varying in the definition of RAS (ie, % stenosis), ultrasound parameters used, and comparator criteria that may complement future work aimed at identifying the ideal and most appropriate diagnostic parameters and stenosis thresholds. The outcome measures of interest to determine the agreement between DUS and the criterion measures were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.

Methods

Search Strategy

The search strategy and systematic review procedures were preregistered in Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SE9VN) prior to conducting the study. Literature searches were conducted using Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Academic Search Premier databases up to November 10, 2022. Our search strategy is presented in Supplemental Table 1, including an example. Search strategies were developed using ultrasound and stenosis as primary search terms by researchers with prior experience conducting review studies.^8,9 Following recommendations,¹⁰ no search restrictions were placed on the type (ie, crossover study, randomized control trial, etc), language of the study, year of study, or population (eg, human studies) at the search stage of the study, but rather at the screening stage.

This review followed the preferred reporting for items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement.¹¹ Article citations were downloaded to an online research management system (Mendeley, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and duplicates were removed. Remaining references were exported to systematic review software for screening (Covidence, Melbourne, Australia).

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies not published in a peer-reviewed journal, or published as an editorial, opinion, review, or conference abstract were excluded. Gray literature would not provide sufficient information to be fully included in the study, and therefore, these studies were excluded. No language or timeline restrictions were implemented into the search strategy, but only articles published post-2005 and available in English were extracted. All studies included human participants, with studies in both children (if available) and adults included.

To be included in the review, studies must compare the detection of RAS by DUS with DSA (gold-standard criterion) or any of the other reference criterion standards, such as MRA and CTA. The most definitive test for RAS is DSA, but MRA and CTA have been demonstrated to exhibit high diagnostic accuracy relative to DSA³ and serve as acceptable reference standards. Results are presented separately for studies using DSA as a reference versus these other surrogate imaging techniques, with the most emphasis placed on studies employing DSA. All studies must conduct these measures in each participant and indicate the diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasound measurements (eg, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and/or kappa).

The accuracy of DUS relative to the criterion measure is characterized as the proportion of arteries that was correctly diagnosed with or without stenosis (accuracy). The proportions that were correctly identified as true positives (both methods detect RAS) or true negatives (both methods do not detect RAS) are referred to as sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Negative predictive value (NPV) is the likelihood that a person who has a negative test (ie, no stenosis identified) does not have RAS (true negative/[true negative + false negative]). Conversely, positive predictive value (PPV) is the likelihood that a person who has a positive test (ie, stenosis identified) does have RAS (true positive/[true positive + false positive]). For each statistic, heuristic thresholds of > 80%, 60% to 80%, and < 60% were considered high, moderate, and low agreement, respectively.¹² As outlined above, only studies post-2005 (≥ 2006) were included.

Screening Process, Data Extraction, and Bias Assessment

The titles and abstracts of citations were screened independently by 2 reviewers who identified potential articles for inclusion. The full text of apparently relevant articles was obtained and screened by the same 2 reviewers. If a consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer acted as the arbiter. The reference list of included articles was back searched for other potentially relevant articles. The information extracted included the location of study, number of participants and arteries, age group and participant characteristics (eg, sex), definition of stenosis used, criterion measure, and sonographer background (if presented).

Assessment of bias and applicability concerns was guided by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool that is recommended for use in systematic reviews to evaluate the risk of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.¹³ Articles were assessed at the study level, evaluating patient selection, index testing, reference testing, flow, and timing. A detailed description of how the QUADAS-2 is scored is presented elsewhere,¹³ but in general, there are signaling questions for each risk of bias and applicability category for authors to consider. For example, risk of bias for the index test asks authors to consider whether results of the comparator test are interpreted without knowledge of the reference standard and whether a prespecified threshold was used for sensitivity/specificity. For flow and timing, a risk of bias may be elevated if there was a long interval between the comparator and reference standard measures, as well as the implementation of multiple reference standards. While decisions for study quality are systematic, they are inherently dependent upon reviewer decisions. Similar to the article screening process, quality assessment for each article was independently completed by 2 reviewers. A third reviewer was consulted to make a final decision in each instance of disagreement between the 2 reviewers.

Results

Study Characteristics

Our search included Scopus (n = 415), MEDLINE (n = 711), EMBASE (n = 370), CINAHL (n = 135), and Academic Search Premier (n = 118). After duplicates (n = 635) were removed, 1114 articles were screened. As presented in Figure 1, 34 articles met our inclusion criteria after full-text screening.

Figure 1.

Flow-chart indicating the number of articles included or excluded at each stage of the screening process.

The included studies encompassed 2968 unique participants and reported a total of at least 1281 unique females (Table 1). The age of participants ranged from 9 to 95 years. Only 1 study specifically included patients with fibromuscular dysplasia and Takayasu’s arteritis.¹⁴ Studies defined stenosis primarily as ≥ 50% (n = 19) or ≥ 60% (n = 11) artery narrowing as a diagnostic indicator of severe RAS, with some not reporting or using a graded scale (n = 4). A single reference measure was performed in most studies (n = 31), while multiple reference measures were performed in others (n = 3). The reference measures included DSA (n = 10), CTA (n = 4), contrast-enhanced CTA (n = 3), MRA (n = 5), contrast-enhanced MRA (n = 2), conventional cut-film angiography (n = 7), selective renal angiography (SRA; n = 4), and conventional angiography (CVA) with transstenotic pressure gradient measurement (n = 1). Doppler ultrasound was conducted both directly (ie, evaluation of the main renal artery; n = 14), indirectly (ie, evaluation of Doppler waveforms in renal parenchyma; n = 3) or using a combination of both (n = 17).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies Comparing Duplex Ultrasound and Angiography Determined Renal Artery Stenosis.

Author (country)	Patients analyzed (female)	Age (years)	Disease prevalence	% stenosis	Reference measure	Doppler (direct or indirect)	Agreement
Digital subtraction angiography
AbuRahma et al 2012 (USA)	313 (200) 606 arteries	70 (range: 28-95)	396/606 arteries	≥60%	DSA(selective intraarterial)	Direct	PSV (285 cm/s) Sens: 67%; Spec: 90%	EDV (65 cm/s) Sens: 51%; Spec: 89%	RAR (3.7) Sens: 69%; Spec: 91%
Chain et al 2016 (Argentina)	34 (13) 64 arteries	54 ± 9	35/64 arteries	>50%	DSA(intraarterial)	Direct	RRR (> 2.7) Sens: 97%; Spec: 96%; PPV: 97%; NPV: 97%
Cui et al 2020 (China)	63 (33) 122 arteries	57 ± 7	81/122 arteries	Grade I: 30%-49% Grade II: 50%-69% Grade III: 70%-99% Grade IV: 100%	DSA	Direct	Sens: 74%; Spec: 78%; PPV: 87%; NPV: 60%; ACC: 75%; Kappa: 0.45 (P < .05)
Li et al 2017(China)	59 (21) NR	NR (range: 16-79)	54/59 participants	NR	DSA(intraarterial)	Direct and indirect	PSV (> 222.5 cm/s) Sens: 89%; Spec: 98%; PPV: 98%; NPV: 46%
Saeed et al 2009(Sweden)	169 (70) 317 kidneys	With RAS: 61 ± 14 Without RAS: 61 ± 12	111/317 kidneys	≥50%	DSA(intraarterial)	Indirect	Kidney basis: Maximal acceleration (≤ 3.8m/s²) Sens: 85%; Spec: 75% PPV: 65%; NPV: 90% Maximal acceleration index (≤ 15/s) Sens: 83%; Spec: 79% PPV: 67%; NPV: 90%	Patient basis: Maximal acceleration (≤ 3.8m/s²) Sens: 84%; Spec: 76% PPV: 55%; NPV: 93% Maximal acceleration index (≤ 15/s) Sens: 80%; Spec: 79% PPV: 59%; NPV: 92%
Soares et al 2006 (USA)	67 (NR) NR	NR	34/67 arteries	≥60%	DSA (nonselective or selective)	Direct	PSV (> 200cm/s) Sens: 97%; Spec: 79%	RAR (> 3.0) Sens: 97%; Spec: 91%
Solar et al 2011 (Czech Republic)	94 (41) 186 kidneys	60 ± 12	61/186 kidneys	>60%	DSA (intraarterial)	Direct and indirect	Sens: 85%; Spec: 84%; PPV: 70%; NPV: 92%
Tola et al 2012 (Turkey)	51 (23) 102 arteries	61(range: 35-89)	58/102 arteries	≥60%	DSA (intraarterial)	Direct	B-flow imaging (≥ 60%) Sens: 88%; Spec: 94% PPV: 92%; NPV: 91% ACC: 91%	PSV (> 200 cm/s) Sens: 100%; Spec: 71% PPV: 73%; NPV: 100% ACC: 84%	RAR (> 3.5) Sens: 78%; Spec: 90% PPV: 86%; NPV: 84% ACC: 85%
Zhu et al 2018 (China)	32 (16) 64 arteries	42 ± 21	40/64 arteries	>50%	DSA (intra-arterial)	Direct and indirect	Sens: 74%; Spec: 66%
Other angiography criterions
Abuagla & Pei 2014 (Sudan and Malaysia)	57 (25) 114 arteries	56 ± 8 (range 18-81)	6/114 arteries	>60%	CE-MRA	Direct	Sens: 67%; Spec: 100%; PPV: 100%; NPV: 95%; ACC: 98%;
Bardelli et al 2006 (Italy)	106 (36) 200 arteries	56	57/106 participants	>60%	CVA	Direct and indirect	Acceleration time (80 ms) Sens: 93%; Spec: 65%;PPV: 51%; NPV: 96%	Mean acceleration (4.0 m/s²) Sens: 93%; Spec: 56%;PPV: 45%;NPV: 95%	Maximal acceleration (4.0 m/s²) Sens: 94%;Spec: 75%;PPV: 60%;NPV: 97%	Maximal acceleration index (9.0 s^-1) Sens: 93%;Spec: 84%;PPV: 70%;NPV: 97%
Bardelli et al 2019 (Italy)	226 (108) 446 kidneys	60 ± 17 (range: 16-90)	30/446 kidneys	≥50%	MRA	Indirect	Sens: 97%; Spec: 94%; PPV: 55%; NPV: 99.7%
Cardoso et al 2006 (Brazil)	62 (37) 127 arteries	67 ± 11	29/62 participants	>60%	SRA	Direct	PSV (189 cm/s) Sens: 100%; Spec: 87% PPV: 96%; NPV: 100%; ACC: 97%	RAR (2.6) Sens: 96%; Spec: 87% PPV: 96%; NPV: 87%; ACC: 93%
Chi et al 2009 (USA)	122 (NR) NR	NR	61/122	≥60%	SRA	Direct	Stent placement 50%-69% stenosis PSV (350 cm/s) Sens: 80% Spec: 87% PPV: 83% NPV: 85% ACC: 84% RAR (4.1) Sens: 80% Spec: 82% PPV: 77% NPV: 84% ACC: 81%	Stent placement ≥ 70% stenosis PSV (395 cm/s) Sens: 83% Spec: 88% PPV: 71% NPV: 93% ACC: 87% RAR (5.1) Sens: 94% Spec: 86% PPV: 71% NPV: 98% ACC: 88%	Without stent placement 50%-69% stenosis PSV (285 cm/s) Sens: 90% Spec: 91% PPV: 86% NPV: 94% ACC: 91% RAR (3.6) Sens: 76% Spec: 85% PPV: 76% NPV: 85% ACC: 82%	Without stent placement ≥ 70% stenosis PSV (300 cm/s) Sens: 89% Spec: 80% PPV: 47% NPV: 97% ACC: 82% RAR (3.7) Sens: 89% Spec: 74% PPV: 40% NPV: 97% ACC: 76%
del Conde et al 2014 (USA)	106 132 arteries	NR	44/132 arteries	>60%	CTA, aortic DSA	Direct	PSV (≥ 241 cm/s) Sens: 93% Spec: 89% PPV: 80% NPV: 96%	PSV (≥ 296 cm/s) Sens: 75% Spec: 98% PPV: 94% NPV: 89%	RAR (≥ 2.6) Sens: 91% Spec: 83% PPV: 75% NPV: 95%	RAR (≥ 4.4) Sens: 64% Spec: 98% PPV: 96% NPV: 83%
Drieghe et al 2008 (Belgium)	47 (20) 56 arteries	72 ± 7	56/56 arteries	>50%	CVA	Direct	PSV (> 180 cm/s) Sens: 100%; Spec: 19% PPV: 37%; NPV: 100% ACC: 45%	EDV (> 90 cm/s) Sens: 60%; Spec: 84% PPV: 64%; NPV: 82% ACC: 77%	RAR (> 3.5) Sens:80%; Spec: 78% PPV: 63%; NPV: 89% ACC: 79%
Eriksson et al 2010 (Sweden)	47 (12) 94 kidneys	68 ± 11	50/94 kidneys	>50%	CE-CTA(multidetector)	Direct	PSV (≥ 1.8 m/s) Kidney basis Sens: 71%; Spec: 97%		PSV (≥ 1.8 m/s)Patient basisSens: 91%; Spec: 100%
Fananapazir et al 2017 (USA)	120 (29)NR	55	97/120 individuals	Mild stenosis 20%-49%Moderate or severe stenosis ≥ 50%	CE- MRA, DSA	Direct and indirect	Full model:Sens: 97%; Spec: 91%	Reduced-variable modelSens: 96%; Spec: 91%	Simple model:Sens. 96%; Spec: 83%
Gandhi et al 2016 (India)	42 (5)NR	30	17/42 individuals	>60%	CE-CTA	Direct and indirect	Intrarenal RI ≤ 0.58Sens: 90%; Spec: 81%Acceleration > 0.071Sens: 100%; Spec: 91%	PSV (> 3.1 m/s)Sens: 100%; Spec: 78%Pre-PSV ratio ≥ 2.0Sens: 100%; Spec: 75%Post-PSV ratio > 10Sens: 100%; Spec: 94%	Post-PSV > 10Sens: 100%; Spec: 94%Post-PSV > 10.2Sens: 90%; Spec: 97%Post-PSV > 10.3Sens: 90%; Spec: 100%
Jazi et al 2011 (Iran)	21 (11)NR	60	5/21 individuals	≥50%	MRA	Direct and indirect	Sens: 57%; Spec: 67%; PPV: 57%; NPV: 67%
Kadziela et al 2011 (Poland)	44 (23)NR	65 ± 9	44/44 individuals	>50%	CVA	Direct and indirect	PSV (≥300cm/s)Sens = 59%; Spec = 80%PPV = 71%; NPV = 70%; ACC = 70%	RAR (≥ 3.07)Sens = 51%; Spec = 58%PPV = 60%; NPV = 69%; ACC = 64%
Kawarada et al 2006 (Japan)	60 (24)75 arteries	70 ± 9 (range 41-83)	75/75 arteries	>50%	SRA	Direct and indirect	PSV (219 cm/s)Sens = 89%; Spec = 89%; PPV = 83%; NPV = 93%; ACC = 89%
Li et al 2008 (China)	77 (47)153 arteries	47 (range: 15-79)	74/153 arteries	≥50%	CVA	Direct and indirect	PSV (170 cm/s)Sens: 88%; Spec: 90%PPV: 88%; NPV: 91%ACC: 89%RAR (2.3)Sens: 76%; Spec: 89%PPV: 85%; NPV: 82%ACC: 83%	RRR (2.0)Sens: 76%; Spec: 93%PPV: 90%; NPV: 83%ACC: 85%	RSR (4.0)Sens: 84%; Spec: 91%PPV: 89%; NPV: 87%ACC: 88%RIR (5.5)Sens: 85%; Spec: 90%PPV: 88%; NPV: 88%ACC: 88%
Li et al 2006 (China)	91 (50)187 arteries	42 (range: 9-82)	106/187 arteries	≥50%	CVA	Direct and indirect	RIR (> 5.0)Sens: 88%; Spec: 88%PPV: 91%; NPV: 84%RIR (> 5.5)Sens: 85%; Spec: 91%PPV: 93%; NPV: 81%RIR (> 6.0)Sens: 80%; Spec: 92%PPV: 94%; NPV: 77%	RAR (> 2.0) & PSV (> 150 cm/s)Sens: 82%’ Spec: 91%PPV: 93%; NPV: 79%RIR (> 5.0) & PSV (> 150 cm/s)Sens: 89%; Spec: 88%PPV: 91%; NPV: 85%	RIR (> 5.0) & PSV (< 15 cm/s)Sens: 91%; Spec: 87%PPV: 90%; NPV: 88%
Li et al 2012 (China)	208 (122)416 arteries	Atherosclerotic group: 64 ± 10TA: 29 ± 12FMD 26 ± 12Other: 40 ± 12	223/416 arteries	≥50%	CVA	Direct and indirect	PSVSens: 85%; Spec: 94%ACC: 90%	RARSens: 85%; Spec: 85%ACC: 85%	Acceleration timeSens: 71%; Spec: 96%ACC: 83%
Lo et al 2013 (USA)	14 (8)15 arteries	66 ± 15	1/15 arteries	>50%	CVA, MRA, CTA	Direct	Spec: 6%
Ng et al 2010 (ROC)	257 (65)NR	75 ± 9	139/257 participants	>50%	CE- MRA	Direct and indirect	Sens: 20%; Spec: 92%; PPV: 76%; NPV: 50%; ACC: 53%
Pan et al 2017 (China)	78 (22)NR	36 ± 12	32/78 participants	≥50%	CE- CTA	Direct and indirect	PSV (> 282 cm/s)Sens: 84%; Spec: 67%PPV: 64%; NPV: 86%ACC: 74%	RI-interlobar (≤ 0.48)Sens: 44%; Spec: 96%PPV: 88%; NPV: 71%ACC: 74%	PSV-ratio (> 9.1)Sens: 88%; Spec: 76%PPV: 71%; NPV: 90%ACC: 81%
Rocha-Singh et al 2008 (USA)	30 (NR)30 arteries	71 ± 9	18/30 arteries	≥50%	CVA	Direct	Sens: 83%; Spec: 92%; PPV: 94%; NPV: 79%
Rountas et al 2007 (Greece)	58 (33)132 arteries	47	20/132 arteries	Mild: <50%Severe: 50%-99%	MRA, CTA, DSA(abdominal aortic)	Direct and indirect	Sens: 75%; Spec: 89%; PPV: 60%; NPV: 94%
Sarfraz et al 2020 (Greece)	210 (112)NR	51 ± 18 (range: 20-80)	97/210 participants	≥50%	CVA	Indirect	Sens: 94%; Spec: 91%; PPV: 90%; NPV: 95%; ACC: 92%
Sun et al 2012 (Korea)	14 (4)NR	42 (range: 22-56)	9/14 participants	>50%	CTA	Direct and indirect	Sens: 67%
Turgutalp et al 2013 (Turkey)	130 (80)144 arteries	54	40/144 arteries	>50%	SRA	Direct and indirect	< 60 yearsSens: 83%; Spec: 82%PPV: 83%; NPV: 82%; ACC: 83%	> 60 yearsSens: 69%; Spec: 0%PPV: 75%; NPV: 0%; ACC: 56%
Zachrisson et al 2017 (Sweden)	58 (27)76 arteries	67	43/76 arteries	≥60%	CVA w/ PGM	Direct	PSV (≥180 cm/s)Sens: 91%; Spec: 42%PSV (≥200 cm/s)Sens: 86%; Spec: 58%PSV (≥220 cm/s)Sens: 79%; Spec: 67%PSV (≥250 cm/s)Sens: 74%; Spec: 73%PSV (≥300 cm/s)Sens: 67%; Spec: 91%	RAR (≥2.6)Sens: 89%; Spec: 69%RAR (≥3.5)Sens: 62%; Spec: 91%	PSV (≥ 180 cm/s) and RAR (≥ 3.5)Sens: 62%; Spec: 91%PSV (≥ 300 cm/s) & RAR (≥ 2.6)Sens: 67%; Spec: 94%

Note. DSA = digital subtraction angiography; PSV = peak systolic velocity; Sens = sensitivity; Spec = specificity; EDV = end diastolic velocity; RAR = renal aortic ratio; RRR = renal-renal ratio; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; TA = Takayasu arteritis; ACC = accuracy; NR = not reported; RAS = renal artery stenosis; CE-MRA = contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography; CVA = conventional angiography; SRA = selective renal angiography; CTA = computed tomography angiography; CE-CTA = contrast enhanced computed tomography angiography; MRA = magnetic resonance angiography; RI = resistance index; RSR = renal-segmental ratio; RIR = renal-interlobar ratio; FMD = fibromuscular dysplasia; PGM = transstenotic pressure gradient measurement.

Comparison With DSA

Ten of 34 studies compared RAS diagnoses using ultrasonography with DSA (DSA only: n = 9; DSA, MRA, and CTA: n = 1). The results from studies comparing DUS with DSA only are presented in this section. Two studies reported accuracy as their main outcome.^15,16 While 1 study that defined stenosis as > 50% reported high-accuracy agreement (86.7 ± 3.8%),¹⁵ another that defined stenosis severity as graded (ie, Grade I-Grade IV) reported moderate agreement (75%).¹⁶ Six of 9 studies reported NPV and PPV, respectively.^15-20 Five of 6 studies reported high agreement for NPV (range: 83%-100%).^15,17-20 However, Cui et al.¹⁶ using a graded definition of stenosis reported moderate NPV agreement (60%). Three of 6 studies reported high PPV (range: 87%-99%)^16,18,19 and 1 study reported moderate PPV.¹⁷ However, Tola et al¹⁵ reported high accuracy during B-flow imaging and a renal aortic ratio of > 3.5, but a moderate PPV during a peak systolic velocity of > 200 cm/s. Saeed et al²⁰ reported moderate and weak PPV for agreement on a kidney versus patient basis, respectively. Nine of 9 studies report sensitivity and specificity as a main outcome.^15-23 Five of 9 reported high sensitivity (range: 80%-98%),^17-20,22 while 1 study reported moderate sensitivity (74%).²³ The study by Zhu et al²³ was conducted in a middle-aged sample on average and with an n = 32 only (Table 1). Tola et al¹⁵ reported high sensitivity during B-flow imaging (88%) and peak systolic velocity > 200 cm/s, but moderate sensitivity during renal aortic ratio of > 3.5. In addition, AbuRahma et al²¹ reported moderate sensitivity using a peak systolic velocity of 285 cm/s and renal aortic ratio of 3.7, but poor sensitivity using an end diastolic velocity of 65 cm/s in a large sample size.

Similarly, half of studies reporting specificity (n = 4/8) observed high agreement (84%-99%).^17-19,21 Three of 9 studies reported moderate specificity^16,20,23 and 2 of these had relatively smaller sample sizes (both, < 70).^16,23 Finally, 2 studies reported mixed results.^15,22 Specifically, Soares et al²² reported high specificity (91%) under a renal aortic ratio of > 3.0, but moderate under a peak systolic velocity of > 200 cm/s. Tola et al¹⁵ reported high specificity under B-flow imaging and renal aortic ratio of > 3.5, but moderate under a peak systolic velocity of > 200 cm/s. In general, studies using DSA as a criterion demonstrated moderate-high agreement with DUS.

Bias and Applicability Assessment for DSA

The risk of bias assessment and applicability concerns for each study are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. Of the 9 studies to use DSA as a criterion only, all studies demonstrated low applicability concerns for patient selection, the index test, and reference standard.^15-23 Only 1 study reported unclear risk for patient selection¹⁸ and 2 studies reported unclear¹⁸ or high¹⁷ risk for bias for the reference standard. However, 3 studies demonstrated either unclear^16,18 or high¹⁷ risk of bias for the index test. Four of 9 studies reported unclear^15-17 or high risk²² for flow and timing of data collection as the time interval between the DUS and DSA measurements was not reported.

Table 2.

Risk of Bias Assessment and Applicability Concerns of Each Included Study Using the QUADAS-2 Tool.

Study	Risk of bias				Applicability concerns
Study	Patient selection	Index test	Reference standard	Flow and timing	Patient selection	Index test	Reference standard
Digital subtraction angiography
AbuRahma et al 2012	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Chain et al	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Cui et al 2020	L	U	L	U	L	L	L
Li et al 2017	U	U	U	L	L	L	L
Saeed et al 2009	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Soares et al 2006	L	L	L	H	L	L	L
Solar et al 2011	L	H	H	U	L	L	L
Tola et al 2012	L	L	L	U	L	L	L
Zhu et al 2018	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Other angiography criterions
Abuagla & Pei 2014	L	L	L	U	L	L	L
Bardelli et al 2006	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Bardelli et al 2019	L	U	L	U	L	L	L
Cardoso et al 2006	L	L	L	U	L	L	L
Chi et al 2009	L	H	L	H	L	L	L
DelConde et al 2014	U	L	L	U	L	L	L
Drieghe et al 2008	L	L	L	U	L	L	L
Eriksson et al 2010	L	L	H	U	L	L	L
Fananapazir et al 2017	L	L	L	U	L	L	L
Gandhi et al 2016	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Jazi et al 2011	L	H	H	U	L	L	L
Kadziela et al 2011	L	U	U	U	L	L	L
Kawarada et al 2006	U	L	L	U	L	L	L
Li et al 2008	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Li et al 2006	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Li et al 2012	L	L	L	U	L	L	L
Lo et al 2013	L	U	U	U	L	L	L
Ng et al 2010	L	L	L	U	L	L	L
Pan et al 2017	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Rocha-Singh et al 2008	L	L	U	U	L	L	L
Rountas et al 2007	L	L	L	U	L	L	L
Sarfraz et al 2020	L	U	U	U	L	L	L
Sun et al 2012	L	U	U	L	L	L	L
Turgutalp et al 2013	L	H	H	U	L	L	L
Zachrisson et al 2017	L	L	L	H	L	L	L

Note. L = low risk; H = high risk; U = unknown risk.

Figure 2.

Graphical display of the risk of bias and applicability concerns of included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. (A) Risk of bias. (B) Applicability concerns.

DUS versus Other Angiography Techniques

Twelve of 25 studies reported accuracy as a main outcome.^{12,14,24-31,32,33} Six of those 12 studies reported high agreement with CVA,^14,30,33 SRA,^25,29 and MRA²⁴ (range: 81-98%). The remaining 6 of 12 studies reported either moderate,²⁸ low,³¹ or a combination of the degree of agreement depending on the DUS parameter.^12,27,32 These studies were generally conducted using similar criterion measures (eg, MRA, SRA, and CVA). Most studies reported sensitivity (n = 24/25)^{3,5,12,14,24-29,30-39,40-43} and specificity (n = 24/25).^{3,5,12,14,24-29,30-39,40,41,43,44} Nine of 24 studies reported exclusively high sensitivity (range: 90%-100%)^{29,33,34,37,38,40,41,45} and 13 of 25 reported high specificity (range: 81%-100%).^{3,14,24,29-31,33,34,37,38,40,41,45} Six of 25 reported moderate (range: 67%-75%)^3,24,42 or low (range: 20%-57%)^28,31,39 sensitivity and 2 of 25 reported moderate (67%)³⁹ or low (6%)⁴⁴ specificity. Of note, Lo and Donaldson⁴⁴ reported the lowest specificity (6%) for DUS but only examined 14 participants (16 arteries).

In some cases, studies exhibited mixed results for sensitivity and specificity due to different conditions (eg, peak systolic velocity, renal aortic ratio, etc).^{5,12,14,27,30,32,35,36} Turgutalp et al¹² demonstrated that DUS exhibited high sensitivity (83%) in patients who are younger than 60 years but only moderate sensitivity (69%) in those older than 60 years. In addition, Zachrisson et al⁴³ exhibited decreasing sensitivity (range: 67%-91%) and increasing specificity (range: 42%-91%) as peak systolic velocity increases. These factors may play a critical role in the agreement between DUS and angiography.

Eighteen studies reported PPV and/or NPV.^{3,5,12,24-30,31-35,39-41} Five of 18 studies reported high PPV (range: 83%-100%)^{24,29,30,33,45} and 9 of 18 studies reported high NPV (range: 83%-97%).^{3,24,26,29,30,33-35,41} Six of 18 studies reported moderate (range: 60%-76%)^3,28,31,41 and low PPV (range: 55%-57%)^34,39 and 2 of 18 reported moderate (67%)³⁹ and low (50%) NPV.³¹ Five of 18 studies reported mixed findings.^{12,26,28,32,35} Interestingly, Chi et al²⁶ observed high PPV and NPV in patients with 50%-69% stenosis but low PPV and high NPV in those with ≥ 70% unstented stenosis. Despite this, DUS exhibited high PPV and NPV for differentiating angiographic 50%-60% and ≥ 70% stenosis in patients with renal stents.

Bias Applicability Assessment for Other Angiography Techniques

Similar to studies that investigated DUS compared with DSA, all studies (n = 25/25) reported low applicability concerns for patient selection, the index test, and the reference standard. Furthermore, 2 of 25 reported unclear^5,29 risk of bias for patient selection due to ambiguous recruiting methods. Five of 25 studies reported unclear^{28,33,34,42,44} and 3 of 25 exhibited high^12,26,39 risk bias for the index test due to inconsistent delivery of DUS to all included participants. For example, Jazi et al³⁹ used renal angiography as their reference standard, only conducted DUS in 16 of 37 participants while the other 21 of 37 underwent MRA. Five of 25 studies demonstrated unclear^{28,33,41,42,44} and 4 of 25 demonstrated high risk of bias for the implemented reference standard. This was due to either multiple reference standards being implemented (eg, MRA and SRA)¹² or unspecified rationale for the selection of angiography type.²⁸ Finally, 15 of 25 and 2 of 25 studies exhibited unclear^{3,5,12,14,27-29,31,33,34,36,37,39,41,44,45} and high^26,43 flow and timing risk, respectively, as the time interval between the DUS and criterion measurements was inappropriate or not reported.

Discussion

Our review amalgamated the most recent available literature investigating the diagnostic accuracy of DUS to predict RAS in comparison with angiography. In comparison with the gold-standard assessment of fluoroscopy DSA, most studies exhibited moderate-high agreement with DUS based on literature with a low risk of bias and low applicability concerns. Compared with angiographic methods of detecting RAS, DUS generally exhibited moderate-high agreement. However, it should be recognized that the ultrasound outcomes (eg, peak systolic velocity) and stenosis thresholds used to denote RAS (eg, > 50%) were heterogeneously implemented across studies. Altogether, our review of more modern DUS studies supports the utility of using ultrasound parameters in diagnosing RAS based on high-quality evidence and draws attention to methodological aspects that require further consensus in this field of research to better inform imaging practices.

RAS due to development of atherosclerosis in the arteries that supply oxygenated blood to the kidneys is implicated in the development of renal failure.⁴⁶ The studies included in our review indicate that DUS might be a reasonable alternative to DSA, with most studies demonstrating moderate-high rates of true positives and true negatives. Therefore, DUS may be useful as a first-line option, and if inconclusive DUS results are observed, then the more expensive and invasive angiography techniques could be used. Our reviewed evidence is somewhat inconsistent with the 88 articles included in the review by Williams et al⁷ up to 2005 that documented mixed results. The 34 articles included herein post-2005 primarily observed acceptable agreement between DUS and angiography. Accordingly, the more recent studies examining the validity of DUS more consistently document better agreement that is likely due to the improvements in ultrasound technology or possibly due to better training or formal education on ultrasound practice. Most of their studies were conducted in the 80s and 90s, and subsequently the field of sonography has made strides in accreditation and training practices.⁴⁷ While the ultrasound machine, software used, and training level of the sonographer are not typically reported, improvements in these factors likely explain our more favorable outcomes. Of note, our review documented study quality and observed low concerns of bias and applicability, which aids in the external application of the results. More modern sonographers who are equipped with better ultrasound machines can identify RAS at a level that supports DUS as an acceptable alternative to angiography.

Despite the original mixed supporting evidence base,⁷ DUS of the renal arteries has been indicated as a screening procedure for RAS.⁴⁸ The results of our review support this practice and position DUS as an additional “tool” for sonographers and radiologists to use as it fits within their clinical practice. Of note, RAS may also be prevalent among children with unique conditions (eg, fibromuscular dysplasia),⁴⁹ and it is unclear whether our findings are applicable to children with smaller arteries. Furthermore, there is a need to better understand which DUS parameter exhibits the best accuracy and adopt standard procedures when conducting diagnostic validity studies as it relates to reporting specific metrics (eg, peak systolic velocity threshold, number of females, direct/indirect, sonographer training, etc) and the time between comparator and criterion outcomes. A well-defined consensus or diagnostic rationale as to what percentage of narrowing defines stenosis is also greatly needed, with studies employing 50%, 60%, or graded categories. Despite this, results were relatively similar between studies indicating that while a stenosis threshold of 50% versus 60% may not largely impact diagnostic accuracy, for example, there are practical implications of employing standard procedures that would better facilitate this measurement into practice and homogenous methods for evaluating literature (eg, meta-analyses). Future studies quantifying the influence of these factors to impact results and determine the cost-benefit⁵⁰ of routinely implementing DUS screens would be important next steps in determining the utility of DUS as a regular diagnostic tool for RAS.

While our study adds to the literature by establishing the diagnostic accuracy of DUS in detecting RAS, review studies are inherently limited by the heterogeneity of the studies included. Specifically, the criterion used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of DUS varied between studies, with studies employing DSA, CTA, MRA, or some combination thereof. To address this, we separated outcomes by DSA (gold-standard criterion) versus other angiography criteria but observed relatively consistent results of moderate-high agreement. Our study draws attention to the unique DUS parameters investigated, which prevented the quantification of amalgamated results for a meta-analysis given that the thresholds for peak systolic velocity or renal aortic ratio were variable. Reporting the timing between comparator and criterion measures is encouraged, as this was the largest source of potential bias identified by the QUADAS-2 tool, leading to most studies being classified as “unclear.” However, concerns over other risks of bias and applicability were generally quite low (eg, reference standard, patient selection, etc), as presented in Figure 2.

It cannot be directly confirmed that older ultrasound machines were not used or any evidence to support or refute a 2005 cut-off for study inclusion. Indirectly, the divergent results between the previous review up to 2005 and our review of 3220 patients supports our rationale for using this cut-off. Accordingly, the high number of participants and studies included (n = 34), provide strong evidence to answer our research question. Our inclusion criteria included all ages, but few studies were conducted in children or youth, preventing any strong conclusions in this population who may benefit most from a less invasive more portable imaging modality.⁴⁹ While this study reviews the diagnostic evidence, there may be additional practical considerations prior to implementing DUS as a diagnostic tool for RAS in a clinical setting, such as the availability of staff, equipment, training, and patient factors.

In conclusion, DUS exhibits moderate-high agreement with gold-standard and other well-established angiographic criteria with the existing literature having low risk of bias and low patient applicability. Some of the limitations of DSA may be addressed with DUS and might be a suitable alternative imaging technique for evaluating RAS that practitioners should consider. There is a clear need to adopt a standardized methodological procedure for evaluating the ability of DUS to diagnose RAS.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jvu-10.1177_15443167231223551 – Supplemental material for Accuracy of Duplex Ultrasound for Detecting Renal Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jvu-10.1177_15443167231223551 for Accuracy of Duplex Ultrasound for Detecting Renal Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review by Jessica R. MacLeod, Matthew J. Kivell, Madeline E. Shivgulam, Haoxuan Liu and Myles W. O’Brien in Journal for Vascular Ultrasound

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: HL and MES were supported by a Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship. MES was supported by a Heat & Stroke BrightRed Scholarship. MWO was supported by a CIHR Post-Doctoral Fellowship Award (#181747) and a Dalhousie University Department of Medicine University Internal Medicine Research Foundation Research Fellowship Award.

ORCID iD

Myles W. O’Brien

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Benjamin

Fazel

Filardo

Choi

Stoler

. Prevalence of and risk factors of renal artery stenosis in patients with resistant hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113(4):687-690. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.10.046.

Young

Chi

Ajaka

McKay

O’Neill

Wong

. Complications with outpatient angiography and interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2002;25(2):123-126. doi:10.1007/s00270-001-0105-8.

Rountas

Vlychou

Vassiou

, et al. Imaging modalities for renal artery stenosis in suspected renovascular hypertension: prospective intraindividual comparison of color Doppler US, CT angiography, GD-enhanced MR angiography, and digital substraction angiography. Ren Fail. 2007;29(3):295-302. doi:10.1080/08860220601166305.

Sarkodieh

Walden

Low

. Imaging and management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(6):627-635. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2012.11.007.

Del Conde

Galin

Trost

, et al. Renal artery duplex ultrasound criteria for the detection of significant in-stent restenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83(4):612-618. doi:10.1002/ccd.25270.

Tullus

. Renal artery stenosis: is angiography still the gold standard in 2011. Pediatr Nephrol. 2011;26(6):833-837. doi:10.1007/s00467-010-1757-x.

Williams

Macaskill

Chan

, et al. Comparative accuracy of renal duplex sonographic parameters in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: paired and unpaired analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(3):798-811. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.0355.

O’Brien

Petterson

Bray

Kimmerly

. What is the impact of aerobic fitness and movement interventions on low-flow-mediated vasoconstriction? A systematic review of observational and intervention studies. Vasc Med. 2022;27(2):193-202. doi:10.1177/1358863X211073480.

O’Brien

Bray

Kivell

Fowles

. A scoping review of exercise referral schemes involving qualified exercise professionals in primary health care. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021;46(9):1007-1018. doi:10.1139/apnm-2020-1070.

10.

Aali

Shokraneh

. No limitations to language, date, publication type, and publication status in search step of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;133:165-167. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.002.

11.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.

12.

Turgutalp

Kiykim

Özhan

Helvaci

Ozcan

Yildiz

. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of Doppler USG and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and selective renal arteriography in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Med Sci Monit. 2013;19:475-482. doi:10.12659/MSM.889035.

13.

Whiting

Rutjes

AWS

Westwood

, et al. Quadas-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.

14.

Yuan

, et al. Impact of atherosclerosis and age on Doppler sonographic parameters in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(5):747-755. doi:10.7863/jum.2012.31.5.747.

15.

Tola

Yurdakul

Ozbulbul

. B-flow imaging for the measurement of residual lumen diameter of renal artery stenosis. J Clin Ultrasound. 2012;40(2):85-90. doi:10.1002/jcu.20892.

16.

Cui

Zhang

Yan

. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus Doppler ultrasound in grading renal artery stenosis. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:7145728. doi:10.1155/2020/7145728.

17.

Solar

Zizka

Krajina

, et al. Comparison of duplex ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of significant renal artery stenosis. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove). 2011;54(1):9-12. doi:10.14712/18059694.2016.10.

18.

Song

Sun

Zhu

Sun

. Assessment of diagnostic value of a new Doppler index for renal artery stenosis and comparison with conventional methods. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2017;10(6):9513-9517.

19.

Chain

Luciardi

Feldman

, et al. Diagnostic role of new Doppler index in assessment of renal artery stenosis. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2006;4(1):4. doi:10.1186/1476-7120-4-4.

20.

Saeed

Bergström

Zachrisson

, et al. Accuracy of colour duplex sonography for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. J Hypertens. 2009;27(8):1690-1696. doi:10.1097/HJH.0b013e32832c417d.

21.

AbuRahma

Srivastava

Mousa

, et al. Critical analysis of renal Duplex ultrasound parameters in detecting significant renal artery stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56(4):1052-91060. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2012.03.036.

22.

Soares

Murphy

Singha

Parada

Jaff

. Renal artery duplex ultrasonography as a screening and surveillance tool to detect renal artery stenosis: a comparison with current reference standard imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(3):293-298. doi:10.7863/jum.2006.25.3.293.

23.

Zhu

, et al. How to diagnose renal artery stenosis correctly using ultrasound? Evaluation of results of renal arteries duplex ultrasonography examinations. Med Ultrason. 2018;20(3):298-305. doi:10.11152/mu-1341.

24.

Abuagla

Pei

. Utility of color Doppler ultrasound in the evaluation of renal artery stenosis in comparison with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2014;25(2):309-315. doi:10.4103/1319-2442.128518.

25.

Cardoso

Xavier

Lopez

Brunini

. Direct duplex scanning parameters in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: a study to validate and optimize cut-off points. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2006;87(3):321-328. doi:10.1590/S0066-782X2006001600015.

26.

Chi

White

Thornton

Milani

. Ultrasound velocity criteria for renal in-stent restenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(1):119-123. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2008.12.066.

27.

Drieghe

Madaric

Sarno

, et al. Assessment of renal artery stenosis: side-by-side comparison of angiography and duplex ultrasound with pressure gradient measurements. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(4):517-524. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm631.

28.

Kadziela

Witkowski

Januszewicz

, et al. Assessment of renal artery stenosis using both resting pressures ratio and fractional flow reserve—relationship to angiography and ultrasonography. Blood Press. 2011;20(4):211-217. doi:10.3109/08037051.2011.558332.

29.

Kawarada

Yokoi

Takemoto

Morioka

Nakata

Shiotani

. The performance of renal duplex ultrasonography for the detection of hemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68(2):311-318. doi:10.1002/ccd.20837.

30.

Jiang

Zhang

Wang

Ouyang

. Evaluation of renal artery stenosis with hemodynamic parameters of Doppler sonography. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(2):323-328. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2008.03.048.

31.

Shen

Wang

Tseng

Lee

. Magnetic resonance angiography and Doppler scanning for detecting atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. J Chin Med Assoc. 2010;73(6):300-307. doi:10.1016/S1726-4901(10)70065-4.

32.

Pan

Liu

Luo

, et al. Transplant renal artery stenosis: evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2017;90:42-49. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.031.

33.

Sarfraz

Masood

. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for prediction of outcome of renal artery stenosis therapy taking angiography as gold standard. Pakistan J Med Heal Sci. 2019;14(1):133–143.

34.

Bardelli

Cavressi

Furlanis

. Valvular and/or non-valvular aortic pathology can bias the ultrasonographic diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019;45(11):2942-2949. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.07.414.

35.

Bardelli

Veglio

Arosio

, et al. New intrarenal echo-Doppler velocimetric indices for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Kidney Int. 2006;69(3):580-587. doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5000112.

36.

Eriksson

Mohammed

De Geer

, et al. Non-invasive investigations of potential renal artery stenosis in renal insufficiency. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(11):3607-3614. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfq259.

37.

Fananapazir

McGahan

Corwin

, et al. Screening for transplant renal artery stenosis: ultrasound-based stenosis probability stratification. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(5):1064-1073. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.17913.

38.

Gandhi

Patel

Kute

Mehta

. Duplex Doppler ultrasound for detection of significant renal artery stenosis in transplant kidney with end to side arterial anastomosis. Clin Queries Nephrol. 2016;5(2):37-39. doi:10.1016/j.cqn.2016.07.004.

39.

Jazi

Arasteh

Shamsolketabi

Tavassoli

Nilforoush

Gharipour

. Comparing diagnostic techniques of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and Doppler ultrasonography in determining severity of renal artery stenosis. ARYA Atheroscler. 2011;7(2):58-62. doi:10.22122/ARYA.V7I2.260.

40.

Wang

Jiang

, et al. Evaluation of renal artery stenosis with velocity parameters of Doppler sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(6):735-742; quiz 743. doi:10.7863/jum.2006.25.6.735.

41.

Rocha-Singh

Jaff

Lynne Kelley

. Renal artery stenting with noninvasive duplex ultrasound follow-up: 3-year results from the Renaissance renal stent trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(6):853-862. doi:10.1002/ccd.21749.

42.

Sun

Hong

Kim

, et al. Clinical usefulness of 3-dimensional computerized tomographic renal angiography to detect transplant renal artery stenosis. Transplant Proc. 2012;44(3):691-693. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.12.007.

43.

Zachrisson

Herlitz

Lönn

Falkenberg

Eklöf

. Duplex ultrasound for identifying renal artery stenosis: direct criteria re-evaluated. Acta Radiol. 2017;58(2):176-182. doi:10.1177/0284185116641345.

44.

Donaldson

. Vessel tortuosity causing false positives in detecting renal artery stenosis on Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Q. 2013;29(1):47-50. doi:10.1097/RUQ.0b013e3182817b57.

45.

Rodrigues

Forjaz

Lima

, et al. A single bout of resistance exercise does not modify cardiovascular responses during daily activities in patients with peripheral artery disease. Blood Press Monit. 2014;19(2):64-71. doi:10.1097/MBP.0000000000000022.

46.

Scoble

. Atherosclerotic nephropathy. Kidney Int. 1999;56:S106-S109. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1755.1999.07126.x.

47.

Sorrentino

. Accreditation, credentialing, and quality improvement in diagnostic medical sonography: a literature review. J Diagnostic Med Sonogr. 2019;35(5):401-411. doi:10.1177/8756479319838234.

48.

Granata

Fiorini

Andrulli

, et al. Doppler ultrasound and renal artery stenosis: an overview. J Ultrasound. 2009;12(4):133-143. doi:10.1016/j.jus.2009.09.006.

49.

Patel

Cahill

. Renovascular hypertension in children. CVIR Endovasc. 2021;4(1):10. doi:10.1186/s42155-020-00176-5.

50.

Bolduc

Oliva

Therasse

, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of renovascular hypertension: a cost-benefit analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(3):931-937. doi:10.2214/ajr.184.3.01840931.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB