Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 780

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Use of Doppler Ultrasonography to Predict the Outcome of Therapy for Renal-Artery Stenosis

Open access
Radermacher, Jörg, Chavan, Ajay, Bleck, Jörg, Vitzthum, Annabel, Stoess, Birte, Gebel, Michael Jan, Galanski, Michael, Koch, Karl Martin, Haller, Hermann·2001·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prospectively identifying patients whose renal function or blood pressure will improve after the correction of renal-artery stenosis has not been possible. We evaluated whether a high level of resistance to flow in the segmental arteries of both kidneys (indicated by resistance-index values of at least 80) can be used prospectively to select appropriate patients for treatment. METHODS: We evaluated 5950 patients with hypertension for renal-artery stenosis using color Doppler ultrasonography, and we measured the resistance index ([1 - end-diastolic velocity divided by maximal systolic velocity] x 100). Among 138 patients who had unilateral or bilateral renal-artery stenosis of more than 50 percent of the luminal diameter and who underwent renal angioplasty or surgery, the procedure was technically successful in 131 (95 percent). Creatinine clearance and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure were measured before renal-artery stenosis was corrected; 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure; and yearly thereafter. The mean (+/-SD) duration of follow-up was 32+/-21 months. RESULTS: Among the 35 patients (27 percent) who had resistance-index values of at least 80 before revascularization, the mean arterial pressure did not decrease by 10 mm Hg or more after revascularization in 34 (97 percent). Renal function declined (defined by a decrease in the creatinine clearance; of at least 10 percent) in 28 (80 percent); 16 (46 percent) became dependent on dialysis and 10 (29 percent) died during follow-up. Among the 96 patients (73 percent) with a resistance-index value of less than 80, the mean arterial pressure decreased by at least 10 percent in all but 6 patients (6 percent) after revascularization; renal function worsened in only 3 (3 percent), all of whom became dependent on dialysis; and 3 (3 percent) died (P<0.001 for the comparison with patients with a resistance-index value of at least 80). CONCLUSIONS: A renal resistance-index value of at least 80 reliably identifies patients with renal-artery stenosis in whom angioplasty or surgery will not improve renal function, blood pressure, or kidney survival.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm200102083440603

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 780

Metadata

Authors
Radermacher, J., Chavan, A., Bleck, J., Vitzthum, A., Stoess, B., Gebel, M. J., Galanski, M., Koch, K. M., & Haller, H.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2001-02-08
Volume
344
Issue
6
Pages
410-417
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2312236630
Cited by
780
References
0
FWCI
33.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use of Doppler Ultrasonography to Predict the Outcome of Therapy for Renal-Artery Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200102083440603
The paper
Radermacher, J., Chavan, A., Bleck, J., Vitzthum, A., Stoess, B., Gebel, M. J., Galanski, M., Koch, K. M., & Haller, H. (2001). Use of Doppler Ultrasonography to Predict the Outcome of Therapy for Renal-Artery Stenosis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200102083440603

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.