JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 20 No. 1 11-17
© 1979 by Society of Nuclear Medicine
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keim, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Laragh, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keim, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Laragh, J. H.

Computer-Assisted Static/Dynamic Renal Imaging: A Screening Test for Renovascular Hypertension?

Hans J. Keim, Philip M. Johnson, E. Darracott Vaughan, Jr., Khalid Beg, David A. Follett, Leonard M. Freeman and John H. Laragh

Columbia University and The New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York

Correspondence: For reprints contact: Philip M. Johnson, The Presbyterian Hospital, 622 West 168 St., New York, NY 10032.

ABSTRACT

Computer-assisted static/dynamic renal imaging with [197Hg] chlormerodrin and [99mTc] pertechnetate was evaluated prospectively as a screening test for renovascular hypertension. Results are reported for 51 patients: 33 with benign essential hypertension and 18 with renovascular hypertension, and for 21 normal controls. All patients underwent renal arteriography. Patients with significant obesity, renal insufficiency, or renoparenchymal disease were excluded from this study. Independent visual analyses of renal gamma images and time-activity transit curves identified 17 of the 18 patients with renovascular hypertension; one study was equivocal. There were five equivocal and three false-positive results in the essential hypertension and normal control groups. The sensitivity of the method was 94% and the specificity 85%. Since the prevalence of the renovascular subset of hypertension is approximately 5%, the predictive value is only 25%. Inclusion of computer-generated data did not improve this result. Accordingly, this method is not recommended as a primary screening test for renovascular hypertension.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 1979 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.