Radionuclide renography: A personal approach

Abstract

Recent advances have increased the value of radionuclide renography in evaluating the patient with suspected disease of the genitourinary tract. The use of the consensus process to help standardize procedures and recommend interpretative criteria provides guidance for the nuclear medicine practitioner, serves as a basis to improve the standard of practice, and facilitates pooling of data from different centers. This review draws on the consensus criteria to present a personal approach to radionuclide renography with a particular emphasis on diuresis renography and the detection of renovascular hypertension. Patients are encouraged to come well hydrated and void immediately prior to the study. Our standard radiopharmaceutical is 99mTc mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG3). Routine quantitative indices include a MAG3 clearance, whole kidney and cortical (parenchymal) regions of interest, measurements of relative uptake, time to peak height (Tmax), 20 min/max count ratio, residual urine volume and a T(1/2) in patients undergoing diuresis renography. A 1-minute image of the injection site is obtained at the conclusion of the study to check for infiltration because infiltration can invalidate a plasma sample clearance and alter the renogram curve. A postvoid image of the kidneys and bladder is obtained to calculate residual urine volume and to better evaluate drainage from the collecting system. In patients undergoing diuresis renography, the T(1/2) is calculated using a region of interest around the activity in the dilated collecting system. A prolonged T(1/2), however, should never be the sole criterion for diagnosing the presence of obstruction; the T(1/2) must be interpreted in the context of the sequential images, total and individual kidney function, other quantitative indices and available diagnostic studies. The goal of ACE inhibitor renography is to detect renovascular hypertension, not renal artery stenosis. Patients with a positive study have a high probability of cure or amelioration of the hypertension following revascularization. In patients with azotemia or in patients with a small, poorly functioning kidney, the test result is often indeterminate (intermediate probability) with an abnormal baseline study that does not change following ACE inhibition. In patients with normal renal function, the test is highly accurate. To avoid unrealistic expectations on the part of the referring physician, it is often helpful to explain the likely differences in test results in these two-patient populations prior to the study.