AC Portal
Document Navigator

Renovascular Hypertension

Variant: 1   High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Normal renal function.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler kidneys retroperitoneal Usually Appropriate O
MRA abdomen without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CTA abdomen with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
MRA abdomen without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
ACE-inhibitor renography May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
Arteriography kidney Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
Venography with renal vein sampling Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Variant: 2   High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Decreased renal function, eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler kidneys retroperitoneal Usually Appropriate O
MRA abdomen without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CTA abdomen with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
Arteriography kidney Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
Venography with renal vein sampling Usually Not Appropriate Varies
MRA abdomen without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
ACE-inhibitor renography Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Panel Members
Refky Nicola, DO, MSca; Richard Thomas, MD, MBBSb; Andrei S. Purysko, MDc; Ayaz Aghayev, MDd; Sandeep S. Hedgire, MDe; Dianne Goede, MDf; Susie Q. Lew, MDg; Timothy McClure, MDh; Sasan Partovi, MDi; Sachin S. Saboo, MDj; Akash Sharma, MD, MBAk; Venkateswar R. Surabhi, MDl; Myles T. Taffel, MDm; Bill S. Majdalany, MDn; Gaurav Khatri, MDo.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Overview of Imaging Modalities
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Normal renal function.
Variant 1: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Normal renal function.
A. US
Variant 1: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Normal renal function.
B. Nuclear Medicine
Variant 1: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Normal renal function.
C. MRA
Variant 1: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Normal renal function.
D. CTA
Variant 1: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Normal renal function.
E. Arteriography
Variant 1: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Normal renal function.
F. Venography
Variant 2: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Decreased renal function, eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Variant 2: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Decreased renal function, eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
A. US
Variant 2: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Decreased renal function, eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
B. CTA
Variant 2: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Decreased renal function, eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
C. MRA
Variant 2: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Decreased renal function, eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
D. Arteriography and Venography
Variant 2: High index of suspicion of renovascular hypertension. Decreased renal function, eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
E. Nuclear Medicine
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Million Hearts.Estimated Hypertension Prevalence, Treatment, and Control Among U.S. Adults. Available at: https://millionhearts.hhs.gov/data-reports/hypertension-prevalence.html.
2. O'Neill WC, Bardelli M, Yevzlin AS. Imaging for renovascular disease. Semin Nephrol. 2011;31(3):272-282.
3. Baumgartner I, Lerman LO. Renovascular hypertension: screening and modern management. Eur Heart J 2011;32:1590-8.
4. Textor SC, Lerman L. Renovascular hypertension and ischemic nephropathy. Am J Hypertens. 2010; 23(11):1159-1169.
5. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Cutlip DE, et al. Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(1):13-22.
6. Herrmann SM, Saad A, Textor SC. Management of atherosclerotic renovascular disease after Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL). Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30(3):366-375.
7. Soulez G, Oliva VL, Turpin S, Lambert R, Nicolet V, Therasse E. Imaging of renovascular hypertension: respective values of renal scintigraphy, renal Doppler US, and MR angiography. Radiographics. 2000; 20(5):1355-1368; discussion 1368-1372.
8. Vasbinder GB, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG, Kroon AA, de Leeuw PW, van Engelshoven JM. Diagnostic tests for renal artery stenosis in patients suspected of having renovascular hypertension: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135(6):401-411.
9. Geyskes GG, de Bruyn AJ. Captopril renography and the effect of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty on blood pressure in 94 patients with renal artery stenosis. Am J Hypertens. 1991; 4(12 Pt 2):685S-689S.
10. Bolduc JP, Oliva VL, Therasse E, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of renovascular hypertension: a cost-benefit analysis. AJR. 2005; 184(3):931-937.
11. Huot SJ, Hansson JH, Dey H, Concato J. Utility of captopril renal scans for detecting renal artery stenosis. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162(17):1981-1984.
12. Postma CT, van Oijen AH, Barentsz JO, et al. The value of tests predicting renovascular hypertension in patients with renal artery stenosis treated by angioplasty. Arch Intern Med.1991; 151(8):1531-1535.
13. Soulez G, Therasse E, Qanadli SD, et al. Prediction of clinical response after renal angioplasty: respective value of renal Doppler sonography and scintigraphy. AJR 2003; 181(4):1029-1035.
14. Bongers V, Bakker J, Beutler JJ, Beek FJ, De Klerk JM. Assessment of renal artery stenosis: comparison of captopril renography and gadolinium-enhanced breath-hold MR angiography. Clin Radiol. 2000; 55(5):346-353.
15. Taylor A. Renovascular hypertension: nuclear medicine techniques. Q J Nucl Med. 2002; 46(4):268-282.
16. van Jaarsveld BC, Pieterman H, van Dijk LC, et al. Inter-observer variability in the angiographic assessment of renal artery stenosis. DRASTIC study group. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative. J Hypertens. 1999; 17(12 Pt 1):1731-1736.
17. De Bruyne B, Manoharan G, Pijls NH, et al. Assessment of renal artery stenosis severity by pressure gradient measurements. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48(9):1851-1855.
18. Mangiacapra F, Trana C, Sarno G, et al. Translesional pressure gradients to predict blood pressure response after renal artery stenting in patients with renovascular hypertension. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3(6):537-542.
19. Smith CW, Winfield AC, Price RR, et al. Evaluation of digital venous angiography for the diagnosis of renovascular hypertension. Radiology. 1982; 144(1):51-54.
20. Illescas FF, Ford K, Braun SD, Dunnick NR. Intraarterial digital subtraction angiography in hypertensive azotemic patients. AJR. 1984; 143(5):1065-1067.
21. Norman D, Ulloa N, Brant-Zawadzki M, Gould RG. Intraarterial digital subtraction imaging cost considerations. Radiology. 1985; 156(1):33-35.
22. Wilms GE, Baert AL, Staessen JA, Amery AK. Renal artery stenosis: evaluation with intravenous digital subtraction angiography. Radiology. 1986; 160(3):713-715.
23. Dunnick NR, Svetkey LP, Cohan RH, et al. Intravenous digital subtraction renal angiography: use in screening for renovascular hypertension. Radiology. 1989; 171(1):219-222.
24. Beregi JP, Elkohen M, Deklunder G, Artaud D, Coullet JM, Wattinne L. Helical CT angiography compared with arteriography in the detection of renal artery stenosis. AJR. 1996; 167(2):495-501.
25. Farres MT, Lammer J, Schima W, et al. Spiral computed tomographic angiography of the renal arteries: a prospective comparison with intravenous and intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1996; 19(2):101-106.
26. Berg MH, Manninen HI, Vanninen RL, Vainio PA, Soimakallio S. Assessment of renal artery stenosis with CT angiography: usefulness of multiplanar reformation, quantitative stenosis measurements, and densitometric analysis of renal parenchymal enhancement as adjuncts to MIP film reading. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998; 22(4):533-540.
27. Mounier-Vehier C, Lions C, Devos P, et al. Cortical thickness: an early morphological marker of atherosclerotic renal disease. Kidney Int. 2002; 61(2):591-598.
28. Francois CJ. Noninvasive imaging workup of patients with vascular disease. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(4):741-760, vii.
29. Kramer U, Wiskirchen J, Fenchel MC, et al. Isotropic high-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced 3.0-T MR angiography in patients suspected of having renal artery stenosis. Radiology. 2008; 247(1):228-240.
30. McGregor R, Vymazal J, Martinez-Lopez M, et al. A multi-center, comparative, phase 3 study to determine the efficacy of gadofosveset-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for evaluation of renal artery disease. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 65(2):316-325.
31. Soulez G, Pasowicz M, Benea G, et al. Renal artery stenosis evaluation: diagnostic performance of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR angiography--comparison with DSA. Radiology. 2008; 247(1):273-285.
32. Tan KT, van Beek EJ, Brown PW, van Delden OM, Tijssen J, Ramsay LE. Magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2002; 57(7):617-624.
33. Solar M, Zizka J, Krajina A, 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.
34. Gloviczki ML, Lerman LO, Textor SC. Blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) MRI in renovascular hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2011;13(5):370-377.
35. Gloviczki ML, Saad A, Textor SC. Blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) MRI analysis in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2013;22(5):519-524.
36. Niendorf T, Pohlmann A, Arakelyan K, et al. How bold is blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging of the kidney? Opportunities, challenges and future directions. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2015;213(1):19-38.
37. Buecker A, Spuentrup E, Ruebben A, Gunther RW. Artifact-free in-stent lumen visualization by standard magnetic resonance angiography using a new metallic magnetic resonance imaging stent. Circulation. 2002;105(15):1772-1775.
38. Spuentrup E, Ruebben A, Stuber M, Gunther RW, Buecker A. Metallic renal artery MR imaging stent: artifact-free lumen visualization with projection and standard renal MR angiography. Radiology. 2003;227(3):897-902.
39. Wang Y, Truong TN, Yen C, et al. Quantitative evaluation of susceptibility and shielding effects of nitinol, platinum, cobalt-alloy, and stainless steel stents. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49(5):972-976.
40. Lal H, Singh RKR, Yadav P, Yadav A, Bhadauria D, Singh A. Non-contrast MR angiography versus contrast enhanced MR angiography for detection of renal artery stenosis: a comparative analysis in 400 renal arteries. Abdom Radiol. 46(5):2064-2071, 2021 05.
41. Utsunomiya D, Miyazaki M, Nomitsu Y, et al. Clinical role of non-contrast magnetic resonance angiography for evaluation of renal artery stenosis. Circ J. 2008; 72(10):1627-1630.
42. Mohrs OK, Petersen SE, Schulze T, et al. High-resolution 3D unenhanced ECG-gated respiratory-navigated MR angiography of the renal arteries: comparison with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. AJR. 2010; 195(6):1423-1428.
43. Braidy C, Daou I, Diop AD, et al. Unenhanced MR angiography of renal arteries: 51 patients. AJR 2012;199:W629-37.
44. Albert TS, Akahane M, Parienty I, et al. An international multicenter comparison of time-SLIP unenhanced MR angiography and contrast-enhanced CT angiography for assessing renal artery stenosis: the renal artery contrast-free trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(1):182-188.
45. Hua HT, Hood DB, Jensen CC, Hanks SE, Weaver FA. The use of colorflow duplex scanning to detect significant renal artery stenosis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2000;14(2):118-124.
46. Motew SJ, Cherr GS, Craven TE, et al. Renal duplex sonography: main renal artery versus hilar analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32(3):462-469; 469-471.
47. AbuRahma AF, Srivastava M, Mousa AY, et al. Critical analysis of renal duplex ultrasound parameters in detecting significant renal artery stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2012; 56(4):1052-1059, 1060 e1051; discussion 1059-1060.
48. Labropoulos N, Ayuste B, Leon LR, Jr. Renovascular disease among patients referred for renal duplex ultrasonography. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46(4):731-737.
49. Li JC, Yuan Y, Qin W, et al. Evaluation of the tardus-parvus pattern in patients with atherosclerotic and nonatherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(4):419-426.
50. Radermacher J. Echo-doppler to predict the outcome for renal artery stenosis. J Nephrol. 2002;15 Suppl 6:S69-76.
51. Viazzi F, Leoncini G, Derchi LE, Pontremoli R. Ultrasound Doppler renal resistive index: a useful tool for the management of the hypertensive patient. [Review]. J Hypertens. 32(1):149-53, 2014 Jan.
52. Garcia-Criado A, Gilabert R, Nicolau C, et al. Value of Doppler sonography for predicting clinical outcome after renal artery revascularization in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(12):1641-1647.
53. Krumme B, Hollenbeck M. Doppler sonography in renal artery stenosis--does the Resistive Index predict the success of intervention? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22(3):692-696.
54. Chi YW, White CJ, Thornton S, Milani RV. Ultrasound velocity criteria for renal in-stent restenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(1):119-123.
55. Del Conde I, Galin ID, Trost B, et al. Renal artery duplex ultrasound criteria for the detection of significant in-stent restenosis. Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions. 83(4):612-8, 2014 Mar 01.
56. Sellars L, Shore AC, Wilkinson R. Renal vein renin studies in renovascular hypertension--do they really help? J Hypertens. 1985; 3(2):177-181.
57. Luscher TF, Greminger P, Kuhlmann U, Siegenthaler W, Largiader F, Vetter W. Renal venous renin determinations in renovascular hypertension. Diagnostic and prognostic value in unilateral renal artery stenosis treated by surgery or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Nephron. 1986; 44 Suppl 1:17-24.
58. Roubidoux MA, Dunnick NR, Klotman PE, et al. Renal vein renins: inability to predict response to revascularization in patients with hypertension. Radiology. 1991; 178(3):819-822.
59. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Cohan RH, Dillman JR, Myles JD, Ellis JH. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology. 268(3):719-28, 2013 Sep.
60. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Ellis JH. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology. 267(1):94-105, 2013 Apr.
61. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Carter RE, Katzberg RW, Kallmes DF, Williamson EE. Risk of intravenous contrast material-mediated acute kidney injury: a propensity score-matched study stratified by baseline-estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology. 271(1):65-73, 2014 Apr.
62. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Bida JP, et al. Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon?. Radiology. 267(1):106-18, 2013 Apr.
63. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Newhouse JH, Davenport MS. Controversies in Contrast Material-induced Acute Kidney Injury: Closing in on the Truth? Radiology 2015;277:627-32.
64. American College of Radiology. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Manual on Contrast Media.  Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Contrast-Manual.
65. Caridi JG, Stavropoulos SW, Hawkins IF, Jr. CO2 digital subtraction angiography for renal artery angioplasty in high-risk patients. AJR. 1999; 173(6):1551-1556.
66. Spinosa DJ, Matsumoto AH, Angle JF, Hagspiel KD, McGraw JK, Ayers C. Renal insufficiency: usefulness of gadodiamide-enhanced renal angiography to supplement CO2-enhanced renal angiography for diagnosis and percutaneous treatment. Radiology. 1999; 210(3):663-672.
67. Taylor DC, Moneta GL, Strandness DE, Jr. Follow-up of renal artery stenosis by duplex ultrasound. J Vasc Surg 1989;9:410-5.
68. Weinreb JC, Rodby RA, Yee J, et al. Use of Intravenous Gadolinium-based Contrast Media in Patients with Kidney Disease: Consensus Statements from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation. Radiology. 298(1):28-35, 2021 01.
69. Patel ST, Mills JL, Sr., Tynan-Cuisinier G, Goshima KR, Westerband A, Hughes JD. The limitations of magnetic resonance angiography in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: comparative analysis with conventional arteriography. J Vasc Surg 2005;41:462-8.
70. Prince M, Tafur JD, White CJ. When and How Should We Revascularize Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019;12:505-17.
71. Lufft V, Hoogestraat-Lufft L, Fels LM, et al. Contrast media nephropathy: intravenous CT angiography versus intraarterial digital subtraction angiography in renal artery stenosis: a prospective randomized trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002; 40(2):236-242.
72. Mallouhi A, Rieger M, Czermak B, Freund MC, Waldenberger P, Jaschke WR. Volume-rendered multidetector CT angiography: noninvasive follow-up of patients treated with renal artery stents. AJR. 2003; 180(1):233-239.
73. Steinwender C, Schutzenberger W, Fellner F, et al. 64-Detector CT angiography in renal artery stent evaluation: prospective comparison with selective catheter angiography. Radiology. 2009; 252(1):299-305.
74. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
75. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.