0
Original Investigation |

Utility of Captopril Renal Scans for Detecting Renal Artery Stenosis FREE

Stephen J. Huot, MD, PhD; Joni H. Hansson, MD; Holly Dey, MD; John Concato, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Internal Medicine (Drs Huot, Hansson, and Concato) and Diagnostic Imaging (Dr Dey), the Section of Nephrology (Dr Huot), and the Clinical Epidemiology Unit (Dr Concato), West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center, West Haven, Conn.


Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(17):1981-1984. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.17.1981.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Captopril renal scanning (CRS) is commonly recommended as a noninvasive method for detecting renal artery stenosis (RAS), based on performance characteristics determined in research settings. Scant data are available, however, regarding the utility of CRS in clinical practice.

Methods  We evaluated the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) of CRS in a consecutive series of 90 patients who underwent both CRS and renal arteriography within a 6-month period (January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1995) at a university hospital.

Results  Among 86 eligible patients (and 169 kidneys), the prevalence of RAS was 43%. The sensitivity of CRS was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-83%); the specificity was 59% (95% CI, 49%-69%); the positive predictive value was 58% (95% CI, 47%-68%); and the negative predictive value was 75% (95% CI, 64%-84%). Also, there was evidence of spectrum bias, because the sensitivity and specificity (as well as the positive and negative predictive values) were different for groups with and without vascular disease.

Conclusions  The results of CRS were substantially worse in a clinical practice setting than previously reported in research settings, despite a similar prevalence of RAS. Captopril renal scanning should not be used as an initial screening test for diagnosing RAS, even among patients with high clinical likelihood of disease.

RENOVASCULAR hypertension due to atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (RAS) is one of the most common types of secondary hypertension in adults.13 The natural history of RAS is progressive, and treatment options include surgical revascularization or angioplasty with stenting.48 Current guidelines9 recommend using captopril renal scanning (CRS), duplex Doppler flow studies, or magnetic resonance angiography as initial noninvasive screening tests9 in patients who are suspected of having renovascular disease. Although no consensus exists regarding the single "best" test,1,1013 many clinicians rely on CRS as the preferred initial approach because of its purported role in identifying patients who would benefit (in terms of blood pressure control) from revascularization.1417

The proposed rationale for CRS as a diagnostic test for RAS relates to the physiologic effects of angiotensin II on renal autoregulation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), involving differential effects on afferent and efferent arteriolar tone5,10 as well as constriction of mesangial cells. Patients with afferent RAS are dependent on regulation of efferent arteriolar tone to maintain GFR. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors interfere with this angiotensin II–mediated vasoconstriction, resulting in a decrease in GFR. Accordingly, patients who demonstrate a change in GFR on their renal scan after administration of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril are thought to represent cases in which the RAS is more likely to be hemodynamically significant.1417

Captopril renal scanning has been reported1417 to be highly sensitive (91%-94%) and highly specific (84%-95%) in detecting RAS, although some investigations have demonstrated less impressive results.18,19 Informal observations from the Yale Hypertension and Referral Service suggested that the test might not perform as accurately in clinical practice as had been reported in an earlier study14 at the same institution. We therefore conducted the current study to determine how well CRS performed in actual clinical practice.

All patients at Yale–New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Conn, who underwent CRS and renal arteriography within a 6-month period (January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1995), were included. Patients were ineligible if they had undergone a revascularization procedure prior to the study period. If patients underwent subsequent CRS or renal arteriography more than once during the study period, only results from the first tests were used in data analysis.

Medical records, CRS reports and films, and arteriography reports were reviewed for all eligible patients. The CRS films were independently reviewed by a nuclear radiologist (H.D.) who was blinded to patient information, prior readings, and results of artiography. Arteriograms were reviewed if the original report did not characterize the percentage of stenosis for each renal artery; interpretation was performed by a vascular radiologist who was blinded to the prior reading and CRS results.

Using the same institutional protocol as that of an earlier study14 for performing and reporting of CRS, positive scintigraphic evidence of RAS required a time-to-peak activity of more than 11 minutes on either the precaptopril or the postcaptopril scan or a calculated glomerular filtration ratio of greater than 1.5 between the 2 kidneys on the postcaptopril scan.

Criterion of positive results of renal arteriography in patients with atherosclerotic disease included stenosis of more than 75% or stenosis of more than 50% with poststenotic dilitation. Fibromuscular lesions were graded as mild, moderate, or severe, and moderate or severe lesions were considered positive for hemodynamically significant RAS, according to criteria previously applied at our institution.14

Data abstracted from the medical records included age at time of study, sex, ethnicity, history of diabetes mellitus, history of elevated total cholesterol levels or of cholesterol-lowering medication use, physical examination findings of vascular disease, history of vascular disease, history of tobacco use, and most recent serum creatinine values (in relation to the date of the CRS). Physical examination findings of vascular disease required the absence of a femoral pulse or the presence of a femoral, carotid, flank, or abdominal bruit. History of vascular disease was defined as documented myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease.

Data were analyzed for each kidney and each patient as the unit of observation. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (and corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were calculated for all patients combined, as well as separately for patients with and without evidence of vascular disease. The results of arteriography were considered the "gold standard" measurements.

Ninety patients were identified from hospital databases as having undergone both CRS and renal arteriography during the study period. Among these patients, 1 medical record was not located; the original captopril scan was missing for another patient; and 2 patients underwent subsequent studies. Accordingly, a total of 86 patients (96%), representing 169 kidneys, were included in the analysis (3 of the 86 had previously undergone a nephrectomy).

Sixty patients (70%) had evidence of vascular disease at the time of study, and 26 did not. Patients with vascular disease were older, and more likely to be white, than patients without vascular disease (data not shown).

Table 1 shows the prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CRS and renal arteriography for all patients.No significant difference was found in the mean interval of time between CRS and renal arteriography among patients whose scanning results were false-negative and true-positive: 35.5 ± 54.8 (mean ± SD) days vs 47.6 ± 53.5 days, respectively.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values of Captopril Renal Scans for All Patients Combined (n = 169 Kidneys)

Table 2 shows the prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CRS and renal arteriography for patients who had evidence of vascular disease at the time of the study. Table 3 shows the prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CRS and renal arteriography for patients who did not have evidence of vascular disease at the time of the study.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Performance Characteristics of Captopril Renal Scans Among Patients With Vascular Disease (n = 116 Kidneys)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Performance Characteristics of Captopril Renal Scans Among Patients Without Vascular Disease (n = 53 Kidneys)

Although complete follow-up data on all patients were not available (and were not a major focus of the study), the medical records for a subset of patients did document whether angioplasty or surgical revascularization was performed in patients with arteriogram-documented RAS. Of the patients with false-negative CRS results (15 of 19 kidneys), 14 received revascularization. Of the patients with true-positive CRS results, 34 received revascularization (40 of 54 kidneys). Follow-up data on blood pressure were not available.

Data from the current investigation demonstrate that the diagnostic test characteristics of CRS in a practice setting at a large referral center are not as good as reported14,15 for patients who were enrolled in research studies at the same institution. For example, a previous publication14 reported 91% sensitivity and 94% specificity among 94 patients. In that study, 44 patients (47%) had RAS, and the positive predictive value (93%) and the negative predictive value (92%) were quite impressive. The current study found a similar prevalence of disease—43% among 86 patients—but the lower sensitivity (79%) and specificity (59%) were associated with more modest positive (58%) and negative (75%) predictive values.

One factor contributing to the observed differences in results between the studies could be that patients in practice are less likely to be monitored as closely as patients in research studies; therefore, patient preparation for CRS might not be as rigorous. Differences in conducting the test could also have a significant effect, particularly with regard to use of "contraindicated" medications (eg, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists), as well as attention to volume status at the time of study.

Progression of underlying atherosclerosis during the interval between CRS and renal arteriography could contribute to the poor CRS performance characteristics observed in our study, but only if there was greater progression of atherosclerosis during this interval among the group of patients with false-negative results on CRS than among the group of patients with true-positive results. Although we do not have serial arteriograms to compare, the mean number of days between CRS and renal arteriography was, on average, shorter in the group with false-negative results on CRS compared with the group with true-positive results: 38 days vs 48 days, respectively, making this explanation unlikely.

The group of patients with vascular disease (Table 2) most closely resembles the subjects in the earlier study,14 yet sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for CRS were substantially lower in the current population. Also, these diagnostic test characteristics differed for patients with and without vascular disease. This observation is consistent with spectrum bias: a problem that occurs when a diagnostic test has different sensitivity or specificity in patients with different clinical manifestations of disease.20 The most striking finding for clinical practice involves the contrast of positive predictive values: 70% (95% CI, 57%-81%) for subjects with vascular disease, and 31% (95% CI, 16%-51%) for subjects without vascular disease. These discordant values, and nonoverlapping CIs, suggest that CRS performs differently in the 2 populations.

The low specificity and poor positive predictive value among the group of patients with no evidence of vascular disease and a prevalence of RAS of 17% confirmed an a priori clinical impression regarding unnecessary angiograms associated with CRS. Although the sensitivity and negative predictive value of CRS in this group were both 100%, more patients had a false-positive test result (n = 20) than had a true-positive test result (n = 9); consequently, 20 patients who did not have RAS were exposed to the risks of arteriography.

The finding that most patients with positive results on arteriography received revascularization, regardless of the CRS result, suggests that CRS was not being used to determine whether to intervene surgically. Other factors, including clinical judgment, patient preference, and renal function, are certainly involved. Unfortunately, we did not have data to determine the predictive value of CRS on blood pressure outcomes for the patients who had undergone revascularization.

The original role of CRS9,1416 was as a noninvasive test for detecting RAS among patients with a high clinical likelihood of the disease. These patients were judged most likely to benefit from blood pressure control after a revascularization procedure, such as bypass surgery or renal angioplasty. Our data from a practice setting suggest that CRS is a poor test to "rule in" patients with a low clinical likelihood of disease and does not perform as well as reported among patients with a high clinical likelihood of RAS.

We suggest that CRS not be recommended as an initial screening test for diagnosing RAS and renovascular hypertension, even among patients with a high clinical likelihood of disease. Rather, the appropriate use of CRS may involve patients who have known RAS (ie, positive results on magnetic resonance angiography or renal arteriography), and for whom the physician is seeking additional information to support a decision about revascularization to improve blood pressure control. Even when CRS is used for this purpose, however, strict adherence to the test protocol (including the discontinuation of selected medications and maintaining proper volume status) is essential.

Accepted for publication February 6, 2002.

Dr Concato is supported by a Career Development Award from the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service, Washington, DC.

Derkx  FHSchalekamp  MA Renal artery stenosis and hypertension. Lancet. 1994;344237- 239
Appel  RGBleyer  AJReavis  SHansen  KJ Renovascular disease in older patients beginning renal replacement therapy. Kidney Int. 1995;48171- 176
Harding  MBSmith  LRHimmelstein  SI  et al.  Renal artery stenosis: prevalence and associated risk factors in patients undergoing routine cardiac catheterization. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1992;21608- 1616
Dean  RHKieffer  RWSmith  BM  et al.  Renovascular hypertension. Arch Surg. 1981;1161408- 1415
Schreiber  MJPohl  MANovick  AC The natural history of atherosclerotic and fibrous renal disease. Urol Clin North Am. 1984;11383- 392
Ramsey  LEWaller  PC Blood pressure response to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for renovascular hypertension. BMJ. 1990;344237- 239
Erdoes  LSBerman  SSHunter  GCMills  JL Comparative analysis of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and operation for renovascular hypertension. Am J Kidney Dis. 1996;27496- 503
Dorros  GJaff  MMathiak  L  et al.  Four-year follow-up of Palmaz-Schatz stent revascularization as treatment for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Circulation. 1998;98642- 647
Not Available, The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;1572413- 2446
Mann  SJPickering  TG Detection of renovascular hypertension: state of the art: 1992. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117845- 853
Krijnen  Pvan Jaarsveld  BCSteyerberg  EWMan in ‘t Veld  AJSchalekamp  MAHabbema  JD A clinical prediction rule for renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129705- 711
Olin  JWPiedmonte  MRYoung  JRDeAnna  SGrubb  MChilds  MB The utility of duplex ultrasound scanning of the renal arteries for diagnosing significant renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122833- 838
Ghantous  VEEisen  TDSherman  AHFinkelstein  FO Evaluating patients with renal failure for renal artery stenosis with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Am J Kidney Dis. 1999;3336- 42
Setaro  JFSaddler  MCChen  CC  et al.  Simplified captopril renography in diagnosis and treatment of renal artery stenosis. Hypertension. 1991;18289- 298
Meier  GHSumpio  BBlack  HRGusberg  RJ Captopril renal scintigraphy: an advance in the detection and treatment of renovascular hypertension. J Vasc Surg. 1990;11770- 777
Fommei  EMezzasalma  LGhione  S  et al.  European Captopril Radionuclide Test Multicenter Study: preliminary results: inspective renographic analysis: the European Captopril Radionuclide Test Multicenter Study Group. Am J Hypertens. 1991;4690S- 697S.
Mann  SJPickering  TGSos  TA  et al.  Captopril renography in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: accuracy and limitations. Am J Med. 1991;9030- 40
Emovon  OEKlotman  PEDunnick  NRKadir  SSvetkey  LP Renovascular hypertension in blacks. Am J Hypertens. 1996;918- 23
van Jaarsveld  BCKrijnen  PDerkx  FOei  HYPostma  CTSchalekamp  M The place of renal scintigraphy in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: fifteen years of clinical experience. Arch Intern Med. 1997;1571226- 1234
Ransohoff  DFFeinstein  AR Problems of spectrum bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978;299926- 930

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values of Captopril Renal Scans for All Patients Combined (n = 169 Kidneys)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Performance Characteristics of Captopril Renal Scans Among Patients With Vascular Disease (n = 116 Kidneys)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Performance Characteristics of Captopril Renal Scans Among Patients Without Vascular Disease (n = 53 Kidneys)

References

Derkx  FHSchalekamp  MA Renal artery stenosis and hypertension. Lancet. 1994;344237- 239
Appel  RGBleyer  AJReavis  SHansen  KJ Renovascular disease in older patients beginning renal replacement therapy. Kidney Int. 1995;48171- 176
Harding  MBSmith  LRHimmelstein  SI  et al.  Renal artery stenosis: prevalence and associated risk factors in patients undergoing routine cardiac catheterization. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1992;21608- 1616
Dean  RHKieffer  RWSmith  BM  et al.  Renovascular hypertension. Arch Surg. 1981;1161408- 1415
Schreiber  MJPohl  MANovick  AC The natural history of atherosclerotic and fibrous renal disease. Urol Clin North Am. 1984;11383- 392
Ramsey  LEWaller  PC Blood pressure response to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for renovascular hypertension. BMJ. 1990;344237- 239
Erdoes  LSBerman  SSHunter  GCMills  JL Comparative analysis of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and operation for renovascular hypertension. Am J Kidney Dis. 1996;27496- 503
Dorros  GJaff  MMathiak  L  et al.  Four-year follow-up of Palmaz-Schatz stent revascularization as treatment for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Circulation. 1998;98642- 647
Not Available, The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;1572413- 2446
Mann  SJPickering  TG Detection of renovascular hypertension: state of the art: 1992. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117845- 853
Krijnen  Pvan Jaarsveld  BCSteyerberg  EWMan in ‘t Veld  AJSchalekamp  MAHabbema  JD A clinical prediction rule for renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129705- 711
Olin  JWPiedmonte  MRYoung  JRDeAnna  SGrubb  MChilds  MB The utility of duplex ultrasound scanning of the renal arteries for diagnosing significant renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122833- 838
Ghantous  VEEisen  TDSherman  AHFinkelstein  FO Evaluating patients with renal failure for renal artery stenosis with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Am J Kidney Dis. 1999;3336- 42
Setaro  JFSaddler  MCChen  CC  et al.  Simplified captopril renography in diagnosis and treatment of renal artery stenosis. Hypertension. 1991;18289- 298
Meier  GHSumpio  BBlack  HRGusberg  RJ Captopril renal scintigraphy: an advance in the detection and treatment of renovascular hypertension. J Vasc Surg. 1990;11770- 777
Fommei  EMezzasalma  LGhione  S  et al.  European Captopril Radionuclide Test Multicenter Study: preliminary results: inspective renographic analysis: the European Captopril Radionuclide Test Multicenter Study Group. Am J Hypertens. 1991;4690S- 697S.
Mann  SJPickering  TGSos  TA  et al.  Captopril renography in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: accuracy and limitations. Am J Med. 1991;9030- 40
Emovon  OEKlotman  PEDunnick  NRKadir  SSvetkey  LP Renovascular hypertension in blacks. Am J Hypertens. 1996;918- 23
van Jaarsveld  BCKrijnen  PDerkx  FOei  HYPostma  CTSchalekamp  M The place of renal scintigraphy in the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: fifteen years of clinical experience. Arch Intern Med. 1997;1571226- 1234
Ransohoff  DFFeinstein  AR Problems of spectrum bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978;299926- 930

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 19

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles
An isotopic diagnosis of seizure. Intern Med 2011;50(23):2919-22.