Abstract

Renal perfusion provides the driving pressure for glomerular filtration and delivers the oxygen and nutrients to fuel solute reabsorption. Renal ischaemia is a major mechanism in acute kidney injury and may promote the progression of chronic kidney disease. Thus, quantifying renal tissue perfusion is critically important for both clinicians and physiologists. Current reference techniques for assessing renal tissue perfusion have significant limitations. Arterial spin labelling (ASL) is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique that uses magnetic labelling of water in arterial blood as an endogenous tracer to generate maps of absolute regional perfusion without requiring exogenous contrast. The technique holds enormous potential for clinical use but remains restricted to research settings. This statement paper from the PARENCHIMA network briefly outlines the ASL technique and reviews renal perfusion data in 53 studies published in English through January 2018. Renal perfusion by ASL has been validated against reference methods and has good reproducibility. Renal perfusion by ASL reduces with age and excretory function. Technical advancements mean that a renal ASL study can acquire a whole kidney perfusion measurement in less than 5–10 min. The short acquisition time permits combination with other MRI techniques that might inform drug mechanisms and renal physiology. The flexibility of renal ASL has yielded several variants of the technique, but there are limited data comparing these approaches. We make recommendations for acquiring and reporting renal ASL data and outline the knowledge gaps that future research should address.

INTRODUCTION

There is a complex interaction between renal perfusion, renal oxygen delivery, renal oxygen consumption and glomerular filtration. Interested readers are referred to detailed reviews [1, 2]. The kidney is unique because >80% of its oxygen consumption is used to power tubular sodium reabsorption. Consequently, the oxygen consumption of the kidney varies with glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and thus renal blood flow. In all other organs of the body, the direction of causation is reversed, with changes in tissue metabolic activity leading to changes in vascular tone, and thus perfusion. Another unique aspect of the renal circulation is the presence of separate cortical and medullary circulations. All blood flow to the kidney (∼25% of cardiac output at rest or ∼1200 mL/min or ∼400 mL/100 g/min in a 70 kg adult with a 300 g kidney) passes through the glomeruli of the renal cortices. The renal medullary circulation (the vasa recta) arises from the efferent arterioles of a subpopulation of glomeruli at the corticomedullary junction (the juxtamedullary glomeruli). Thus only ∼10% of renal blood flow perfuses the renal medulla, with evidence that cortical and medullary circulations are independently regulated [3]. There is evolving evidence that renal tissue ischaemia and associated hypoxia are critical factors in the initiation and progression of both acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), irrespective of the underlying aetiology [4]. Thus to understand the physiological regulation of renal perfusion and the role of its dysregulation in kidney disease and injury, we require methods that allow quantification of renal perfusion both at the whole organ level and at the local tissue level. Traditional reference techniques for assessing renal tissue perfusion in animals and humans have significant limitations with no gold-standard technique available [5]. Arterial spin labelling (ASL) is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique that uses the magnetic labelling of water in arterial blood as an endogenous tracer to quantify regional perfusion. The purpose of this review is to outline the ASL technique and summarize all human non-cancer studies performed since the technique was first described. Current gaps in knowledge are identified and recommendations for future studies are made.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase on 4 January 2018. The search strategy is outlined in detail in the Supplementary data. In brief, it comprised the terms arterial spin label, kidney, renal circulation, renal blood flow and renal perfusion. Conference abstracts, animal studies and human studies of renal cancer were excluded. Studies not published in English were excluded. Study characteristics were abstracted and cross-validated by multiple reviewers.

RESULTS

Study characteristics and important MRI parameters are summarized in Supplementary data, Table S1. Studies were generally small (mean 25 ± 23 participants, range 4–98 participants) and predominantly described healthy volunteers. Hydration status was rarely reported. The time of day at which the scan was collected was described in only 7 of 53 studies, which might be pertinent due to circadian variations in renal haemodynamics. Renal cortical perfusion by ASL ranged from 139 to 427 mL/100 g/min in healthy volunteers and from 83 to 412 mL/100 g/min in a broad range of patient groups. The reproducibility of renal perfusion by ASL was reported in 17 of 53 studies. Several papers reported renal ASL perfusion values under physiological challenges. Renal ASL perfusion values were generally lower in CKD patients compared with healthy subjects and were correlated with estimated GFR (eGFR).

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ASL

ASL uses blood water as a freely diffusible tracer to quantify renal perfusion in physiological units of mL/100 g/min. The basic ASL experiment collects two image types, referred to as the ‘label’ (or tag) and ‘control’ images. The label is applied using radiofrequency (RF) pulses to alter the longitudinal magnetization of protons in the arterial blood water before it enters the imaging plane, and an image is collected after a delay time. The control image is acquired at the same delay time without labelling the arterial blood protons. Provided that the inverted magnetization of the inflowing blood is the only difference between the control and label images, a simple subtraction of the label from the control image yields a perfusion-weighted image in which signal intensity is proportional to perfusion (Figure 1).

Schematic showing basic principles of ASL. (A) Pulsed ASL (PASL) showing a single radiofrequency pulse for labelling followed by a post-label delay before the image is acquired within one TR (repetition time), with a label-control ASL pair shown. This sequence is then repeated to collect multiple ASL pairs. (B) Pseudocontinous ASL (pCASL) showing a train of radiofrequency pulses for labelling followed by a post-labelling delay. (C) Example control and label images and the resulting perfusion-weighted (PW) image created by subtraction of the label from the control image.
FIGURE 1:

Schematic showing basic principles of ASL. (A) Pulsed ASL (PASL) showing a single radiofrequency pulse for labelling followed by a post-label delay before the image is acquired within one TR (repetition time), with a label-control ASL pair shown. This sequence is then repeated to collect multiple ASL pairs. (B) Pseudocontinous ASL (pCASL) showing a train of radiofrequency pulses for labelling followed by a post-labelling delay. (C) Example control and label images and the resulting perfusion-weighted (PW) image created by subtraction of the label from the control image.

The signal in each voxel of the perfusion-weighted image is entered into a kinetic model to quantify the perfusion-weighted signal and thus generate a quantitative perfusion map (Supplementary data). ASL schemes can be classified into three major groups: pulsed ASL (PASL), continuous ASL (CASL) and pseudo-continuous ASL (pCASL) schemes, with PASL and pCASL being the most widely used schemes for renal ASL. The flow-sensitive alternating inversion recovery (FAIR) variant is the PASL scheme most widely used in renal imaging (Supplementary data, Table S1). It uses an RF pulse centred on the imaging plane to invert a large volume of blood (label) and an adiabatic RF pulse to invert a spatially selective region (control). In CASL, a single long-duration RF pulse is applied to invert the arterial magnetization as blood flows through the labelling plane while a gradient is applied in the direction of arterial flow. In pCASL, a long series of short RF pulses are used to mimic the action of CASL but limit the energy deposition (specific absorption rate). pCASL is more compatible with modern MRI scanners, thus making it more feasible for clinical use (Figure 1) than original CASL implementations. In all cases, the label decays with the longitudinal relaxation time (T1) for tissue or blood, which is a variable dependent on magnetic field strength. Each label or control image is acquired after a delay time, with the image readout taking one of several schemes (Supplementary data). ASL techniques have intrinsically low signal:noise ratio, with a typical renal cortex perfusion-weighted signal intensity of 5% of the control image signal. To improve signal:noise ratio, multiple ASL control-label pairs are collected and the perfusion-weighted difference signals are averaged. Renal ASL is inherently susceptible to respiratory-induced motion of the kidney between label and control images, although averaging acts to suppress to some extent such motion-related artefacts. Limiting motion artefacts during image acquisition is a critical issue in renal ASL [6]. Several alternative strategies have been employed to limit the effects of motion (Supplementary data).

VALIDATION OF RENAL ASL TO MEASURE RENAL PERFUSION

Techniques for assessing renal tissue perfusion in animals and humans have significant limitations, with no available gold-standard technique. In animal experiments, microspheres can be used. However, due to the phenomenon of plasma skimming, these methods are inaccurate in the kidney [5]. Furthermore, as microspheres are trapped in the pre-glomerular and glomerular circulations, they are unsuitable for medullary perfusion. Analyses of microsphere concentration must be done post-mortem, so this method is unsuitable for use in humans. The plasma clearance of para-aminohippurate measures effective renal blood flow in humans but is limited by its incomplete and variable renal extraction, making it a ‘bronze standard’ at best [5]. It also provides no information about the relative perfusion of the renal cortex and medulla. Renal scintigraphy lacks spatial resolution and uses ionizing radiation, limiting repeatability. Computed tomography also uses ionizing radiation [7] and requires contrast agents that can injure the kidney [8]. Dynamic gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI can measure renal perfusion, but this method is not well validated and its use is restricted in CKD due to protocols to minimize the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis [9].

The lack of a gold-standard technique for renal perfusion means that studies that validate renal ASL against reference techniques must be cautiously interpreted. Renal cortical perfusion measured by PASL-FAIR was compared with blood flow measured by ultrasound flowmetry in a single isolated ex vivo swine kidney, with the greatest observed difference of 13% [10]. Artz et al. [11] compared renal perfusion acquired with a PASL-FAIR technique at 1.5 T in 11 swines. Both ASL and microspheres showed an increase in perfusion during an acetylcholine challenge and a decrease during administration of isoflurane. The two perfusion techniques showed a good correlation (r = 0.81, P < 0.0001) with a linear relationship in the physiologic range (microsphere perfusion <550 mL/min/100 g), but perfusion values measured by ASL were systematically lower than those measured by microspheres. This may have been due in part to assumptions around the kinetic model used to determine the ASL perfusion values, but may also reflect the poor reproducibility and accuracy of the microsphere technique itself.

Ritt et al. [12] measured perfusion by both renal ASL and para-aminohippurate clearance in 24 patients with metabolic syndrome and a Cockroft and Gault estimated creatinine clearance ≥60 mL/min. Renal perfusion by the two techniques correlated modestly (r = 0.575, P < 0.001). After the patients had 2 weeks of therapy with telmisartan, an 11% increase of renal plasma flow by para-aminohippurate clearance was associated with a 6% increase by PASL-FAIR. Shimizu et al. [13] described a modest correlation between cortical renal perfusion by a pCASL technique and 99mTc-MAG3 scintigraphy in 14 healthy volunteers. There is conflicting evidence with respect to the similarity of perfusion estimates by dynamic gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI and ASL [14–16]. This is expected given the differences in the tracer kinetic properties of magnetically labelled water and gadolinium contrast agents.

REPRODUCIBILITY OF RENAL ASL

Renal perfusion measurements by ASL are influenced by several patient-specific and technical factors, as discussed in the Supplementary data. Comparisons of reproducibility measures are also constrained by the disparate ways in which perfusion and reproducibility values are presented. Within-subject reproducibility of perfusion by renal ASL in 17 studies is summarized in Table 1. The range of study participants include healthy volunteers, hypertensives [25], patients with lupus nephritis [29], and kidney transplant recipients [17, 28]. Overall, cortical perfusion had moderate to good short-term reproducibility in the same visit [intraclass correlation (ICC) 0.62–0.98; coefficient of variation (CV) 3–18%] and between different visits (ICC 0.85–0.97; CV 4–13%). Ensuring reproducibility of medullary perfusion measurements provides additional challenges. These include reduced contrast:noise ratio due to lower perfusion, renal medullary volumes prone to errors in accurate segmentation and signal loss from the longer transit time of the magnetically labelled bolus as it initially passes through the cortex. Therefore it is not surprising that medullary perfusion is reported as less reproducible both within visits (ICC 0.27–0.94; CV 3–43%) and between visits (ICC 0.13–0.96; 4–37%). Studies in which both intra- and intervisit reproducibility were measured suggest that intervisit reproducibility is greater [17, 22, 26]. At the time of this review, there are no published studies comparing the reproducibility of ASL at different magnetic field strengths or under different labelling approaches. Similarly, we found no studies of reproducibility between centres.

Table 1.

Reproducibility of renal perfusion by ASL

ReferencesParticipants, nB0 (T)Intravisit
Intervisit
ICCCV (%)ICCCV (%)Interval (days)a
Artz et al. [17]10 (HV) + 14 (P)1.5
  • 0.96–0.98 (C)

  • 0.72–0.78 (M)

4.8–6.0 (C) 16.7–26.7 (M)0.89–0.94 (C) 0.13–0.63 (M)
  • 7.6–13.1 (C)

  • 19.8–37.0 (M)

  • 74 ± 83 (HV)

  • 19 ± 21 (P)

Chowdhury et al. [18]12 (HV)1.53.3 (C)
Chowdhury et al. [19]12 (HV)1.53.3 (C)
Cox et al. [20]11 (HV)1.5/3
  • 0.80 (C)

  • 0.61 (W)

  • 9.3 ± 4.4 (C)

  • 14.9 ± 3.8 (W)

NR
Cutajar et al. [21]5 (HV)1.5
  • 7.1–7.5 (C)

  • 5.4–5.9 (W)

21 (8–174)a
Cutajar et al. [14]16 (HV)1.514–18 (W)7 (7–56)a
Gardener and Francis [22]4 (HV)1.510–20 (C)NR
Getzin et al. [23]15 (HV)1.5
  • 0.77 (C)

  • 0.83 (M)

6.7 (C) 10 (M)
Gillis et al. [24]12 (HV)3
  • 0.85 (C)

  • 0.86 (W)

  • 9.2 (C)

  • 7.1 (W)

4–28
Hammon et al. [25]5 (HV)+ 9 (P)1.5
  • 0.95–0.96 (C)

  • 0.92–0.94 (M)

  • 0.93–0.97 (W)

  • 3.0–3.8 ± 1.2–1.7 (C)

  • 3.3–3.9 ± 1.8–2.1 (M)

  • 2.3–3.2 ± 1.0–1.5 (W)

  • 0.97 (C)

  • 0.96 (M)

  • 0.97 (W)

  • 4.2 ± 1.3 (C)

  • 4.1 ± 1.4 (M)

  • 3.4 ± 0.9 (W)

14
Karger et al. [26]3 (HV)1.54.1 (W)28
Kim et al. [27]25 (HV)3
  • 0.90 (C)

  • 0.42 (M)

  • 17.6 (C)

  • 42.9 (M)

Lanzman et al. [28]3 (P)1.54.1 (C)<35
Rapacchi et al. [29]10 (HV) + 10(P)1.5
  • 0.62–0.66 (C)

  • 0.46–0.47 (M)

  • 10.9–11.6 (C)

  • 20.8–21.1 (M)

Robson et al. [30]4 (HV1.51.7–8 (W)7–23 (W)7
Robson et al. [31]4 (HV)1.58.8 (W)
Wu et al. [16]4 (HV)37.9 (C)7.2 (M)
ReferencesParticipants, nB0 (T)Intravisit
Intervisit
ICCCV (%)ICCCV (%)Interval (days)a
Artz et al. [17]10 (HV) + 14 (P)1.5
  • 0.96–0.98 (C)

  • 0.72–0.78 (M)

4.8–6.0 (C) 16.7–26.7 (M)0.89–0.94 (C) 0.13–0.63 (M)
  • 7.6–13.1 (C)

  • 19.8–37.0 (M)

  • 74 ± 83 (HV)

  • 19 ± 21 (P)

Chowdhury et al. [18]12 (HV)1.53.3 (C)
Chowdhury et al. [19]12 (HV)1.53.3 (C)
Cox et al. [20]11 (HV)1.5/3
  • 0.80 (C)

  • 0.61 (W)

  • 9.3 ± 4.4 (C)

  • 14.9 ± 3.8 (W)

NR
Cutajar et al. [21]5 (HV)1.5
  • 7.1–7.5 (C)

  • 5.4–5.9 (W)

21 (8–174)a
Cutajar et al. [14]16 (HV)1.514–18 (W)7 (7–56)a
Gardener and Francis [22]4 (HV)1.510–20 (C)NR
Getzin et al. [23]15 (HV)1.5
  • 0.77 (C)

  • 0.83 (M)

6.7 (C) 10 (M)
Gillis et al. [24]12 (HV)3
  • 0.85 (C)

  • 0.86 (W)

  • 9.2 (C)

  • 7.1 (W)

4–28
Hammon et al. [25]5 (HV)+ 9 (P)1.5
  • 0.95–0.96 (C)

  • 0.92–0.94 (M)

  • 0.93–0.97 (W)

  • 3.0–3.8 ± 1.2–1.7 (C)

  • 3.3–3.9 ± 1.8–2.1 (M)

  • 2.3–3.2 ± 1.0–1.5 (W)

  • 0.97 (C)

  • 0.96 (M)

  • 0.97 (W)

  • 4.2 ± 1.3 (C)

  • 4.1 ± 1.4 (M)

  • 3.4 ± 0.9 (W)

14
Karger et al. [26]3 (HV)1.54.1 (W)28
Kim et al. [27]25 (HV)3
  • 0.90 (C)

  • 0.42 (M)

  • 17.6 (C)

  • 42.9 (M)

Lanzman et al. [28]3 (P)1.54.1 (C)<35
Rapacchi et al. [29]10 (HV) + 10(P)1.5
  • 0.62–0.66 (C)

  • 0.46–0.47 (M)

  • 10.9–11.6 (C)

  • 20.8–21.1 (M)

Robson et al. [30]4 (HV1.51.7–8 (W)7–23 (W)7
Robson et al. [31]4 (HV)1.58.8 (W)
Wu et al. [16]4 (HV)37.9 (C)7.2 (M)
a

Values are mean±SD or median (range).

B0, magnetic field strength (Tesla); C, cortex; CV, coefficient of variation; HV, healthy volunteers; M, medulla; NR, not reported; P, patients; W, whole kidney.

Table 1.

Reproducibility of renal perfusion by ASL

ReferencesParticipants, nB0 (T)Intravisit
Intervisit
ICCCV (%)ICCCV (%)Interval (days)a
Artz et al. [17]10 (HV) + 14 (P)1.5
  • 0.96–0.98 (C)

  • 0.72–0.78 (M)

4.8–6.0 (C) 16.7–26.7 (M)0.89–0.94 (C) 0.13–0.63 (M)
  • 7.6–13.1 (C)

  • 19.8–37.0 (M)

  • 74 ± 83 (HV)

  • 19 ± 21 (P)

Chowdhury et al. [18]12 (HV)1.53.3 (C)
Chowdhury et al. [19]12 (HV)1.53.3 (C)
Cox et al. [20]11 (HV)1.5/3
  • 0.80 (C)

  • 0.61 (W)

  • 9.3 ± 4.4 (C)

  • 14.9 ± 3.8 (W)

NR
Cutajar et al. [21]5 (HV)1.5
  • 7.1–7.5 (C)

  • 5.4–5.9 (W)

21 (8–174)a
Cutajar et al. [14]16 (HV)1.514–18 (W)7 (7–56)a
Gardener and Francis [22]4 (HV)1.510–20 (C)NR
Getzin et al. [23]15 (HV)1.5
  • 0.77 (C)

  • 0.83 (M)

6.7 (C) 10 (M)
Gillis et al. [24]12 (HV)3
  • 0.85 (C)

  • 0.86 (W)

  • 9.2 (C)

  • 7.1 (W)

4–28
Hammon et al. [25]5 (HV)+ 9 (P)1.5
  • 0.95–0.96 (C)

  • 0.92–0.94 (M)

  • 0.93–0.97 (W)

  • 3.0–3.8 ± 1.2–1.7 (C)

  • 3.3–3.9 ± 1.8–2.1 (M)

  • 2.3–3.2 ± 1.0–1.5 (W)

  • 0.97 (C)

  • 0.96 (M)

  • 0.97 (W)

  • 4.2 ± 1.3 (C)

  • 4.1 ± 1.4 (M)

  • 3.4 ± 0.9 (W)

14
Karger et al. [26]3 (HV)1.54.1 (W)28
Kim et al. [27]25 (HV)3
  • 0.90 (C)

  • 0.42 (M)

  • 17.6 (C)

  • 42.9 (M)

Lanzman et al. [28]3 (P)1.54.1 (C)<35
Rapacchi et al. [29]10 (HV) + 10(P)1.5
  • 0.62–0.66 (C)

  • 0.46–0.47 (M)

  • 10.9–11.6 (C)

  • 20.8–21.1 (M)

Robson et al. [30]4 (HV1.51.7–8 (W)7–23 (W)7
Robson et al. [31]4 (HV)1.58.8 (W)
Wu et al. [16]4 (HV)37.9 (C)7.2 (M)
ReferencesParticipants, nB0 (T)Intravisit
Intervisit
ICCCV (%)ICCCV (%)Interval (days)a
Artz et al. [17]10 (HV) + 14 (P)1.5
  • 0.96–0.98 (C)

  • 0.72–0.78 (M)

4.8–6.0 (C) 16.7–26.7 (M)0.89–0.94 (C) 0.13–0.63 (M)
  • 7.6–13.1 (C)

  • 19.8–37.0 (M)

  • 74 ± 83 (HV)

  • 19 ± 21 (P)

Chowdhury et al. [18]12 (HV)1.53.3 (C)
Chowdhury et al. [19]12 (HV)1.53.3 (C)
Cox et al. [20]11 (HV)1.5/3
  • 0.80 (C)

  • 0.61 (W)

  • 9.3 ± 4.4 (C)

  • 14.9 ± 3.8 (W)

NR
Cutajar et al. [21]5 (HV)1.5
  • 7.1–7.5 (C)

  • 5.4–5.9 (W)

21 (8–174)a
Cutajar et al. [14]16 (HV)1.514–18 (W)7 (7–56)a
Gardener and Francis [22]4 (HV)1.510–20 (C)NR
Getzin et al. [23]15 (HV)1.5
  • 0.77 (C)

  • 0.83 (M)

6.7 (C) 10 (M)
Gillis et al. [24]12 (HV)3
  • 0.85 (C)

  • 0.86 (W)

  • 9.2 (C)

  • 7.1 (W)

4–28
Hammon et al. [25]5 (HV)+ 9 (P)1.5
  • 0.95–0.96 (C)

  • 0.92–0.94 (M)

  • 0.93–0.97 (W)

  • 3.0–3.8 ± 1.2–1.7 (C)

  • 3.3–3.9 ± 1.8–2.1 (M)

  • 2.3–3.2 ± 1.0–1.5 (W)

  • 0.97 (C)

  • 0.96 (M)

  • 0.97 (W)

  • 4.2 ± 1.3 (C)

  • 4.1 ± 1.4 (M)

  • 3.4 ± 0.9 (W)

14
Karger et al. [26]3 (HV)1.54.1 (W)28
Kim et al. [27]25 (HV)3
  • 0.90 (C)

  • 0.42 (M)

  • 17.6 (C)

  • 42.9 (M)

Lanzman et al. [28]3 (P)1.54.1 (C)<35
Rapacchi et al. [29]10 (HV) + 10(P)1.5
  • 0.62–0.66 (C)

  • 0.46–0.47 (M)

  • 10.9–11.6 (C)

  • 20.8–21.1 (M)

Robson et al. [30]4 (HV1.51.7–8 (W)7–23 (W)7
Robson et al. [31]4 (HV)1.58.8 (W)
Wu et al. [16]4 (HV)37.9 (C)7.2 (M)
a

Values are mean±SD or median (range).

B0, magnetic field strength (Tesla); C, cortex; CV, coefficient of variation; HV, healthy volunteers; M, medulla; NR, not reported; P, patients; W, whole kidney.

RENAL ASL IN HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS

This review has highlighted several caveats in terms of both the ASL acquisition and perfusion quantification methods (Supplementary data). Supplementary data, Table S1 shows the range of reported renal cortical perfusion values ranging from (139–427 mL/100 g/min) in healthy volunteers. Authors described renal perfusion by ASL under physiological challenges including water loading [33], intravenous saline [19, 20] and injections of furosemide [34]. Reduced renal perfusion with age was found in two recent studies [13, 21].

RENAL ASL IN KIDNEY DISEASE

Renal ASL has been applied in the study of CKD [18, 21, 33, 35–41], AKI [42], lupus nephritis [30, 43], metabolic syndrome [12], diabetes [39, 44], hypertension [45, 46], heart failure [36] and renovascular disease [38]. Consistent findings from these studies are that renal cortical perfusion is reduced in CKD compared with healthy volunteers; renal perfusion reduces with increasing stage of CKD and correlates to eGFR (Table 2).

Table 2.

Significant correlations of renal perfusion by ASL with eGFR

ReferenceSettingeGFR methodr-value
Breidthardt-2015 [35]CKDMDRD0.52
Gillis-2016 [36]CKDCKD-EPI0.73
Li-2017 [32]CKDCKD-EPI0.67
Mora-Gutierrez-2017 [38]CKDMDRD0.62
Artz-2011-MRI [48]Healthy volunteer/TransplantMDRD0.85/0.62
Heusch-2014 [46]TransplantMDRD0.59
Hueper-2015 [47]TransplantMDRD0.64
ReferenceSettingeGFR methodr-value
Breidthardt-2015 [35]CKDMDRD0.52
Gillis-2016 [36]CKDCKD-EPI0.73
Li-2017 [32]CKDCKD-EPI0.67
Mora-Gutierrez-2017 [38]CKDMDRD0.62
Artz-2011-MRI [48]Healthy volunteer/TransplantMDRD0.85/0.62
Heusch-2014 [46]TransplantMDRD0.59
Hueper-2015 [47]TransplantMDRD0.64
Table 2.

Significant correlations of renal perfusion by ASL with eGFR

ReferenceSettingeGFR methodr-value
Breidthardt-2015 [35]CKDMDRD0.52
Gillis-2016 [36]CKDCKD-EPI0.73
Li-2017 [32]CKDCKD-EPI0.67
Mora-Gutierrez-2017 [38]CKDMDRD0.62
Artz-2011-MRI [48]Healthy volunteer/TransplantMDRD0.85/0.62
Heusch-2014 [46]TransplantMDRD0.59
Hueper-2015 [47]TransplantMDRD0.64
ReferenceSettingeGFR methodr-value
Breidthardt-2015 [35]CKDMDRD0.52
Gillis-2016 [36]CKDCKD-EPI0.73
Li-2017 [32]CKDCKD-EPI0.67
Mora-Gutierrez-2017 [38]CKDMDRD0.62
Artz-2011-MRI [48]Healthy volunteer/TransplantMDRD0.85/0.62
Heusch-2014 [46]TransplantMDRD0.59
Hueper-2015 [47]TransplantMDRD0.64

RENAL ASL IN RENAL TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS AND LIVING KIDNEY DONORS

Renal ASL has been applied in kidney transplant studies. Prominent findings include that renal cortical ASL perfusion values differ between patients with early and delayed graft function and correlate with allograft function [29, 47–51]. In a group of 98 transplant recipients, perfusion by PASL-FAIR reduced with increasing stage of CKD [47]. Cutajar et al. [51] showed that renal ASL can be used to determine filtration fraction and could potentially act as a biomarker of renal functional reserve in potential living kidney donors.

LONGITUDINAL AND MULTIPARAMETRIC STUDIES

The non-invasive, short-lived nature of the tracer and rapid acquisition time make renal ASL inherently suited to repeated studies over a range of timescales. These allow repeated measures experiments that would not be possible with any other perfusion technique in humans and may provide novel insights into drug mechanisms and renal pathophysiology. Examples of longitudinal studies include two randomized double-blinded crossover studies by Chowdhury et al. [19, 20]. Distinct effects of commonly used intravenous fluids on renal perfusion were found by performing ASL six times over 2 h after an infusion of one intravenous fluid then repeating the experiment on a second day for a different intravenous fluid. Niles et al. [50] performed serial ASL imaging in 15 matched pairs of living kidney donors and recipients four times over 2 years. Significant differences were found in the 2-year profiles of cortical perfusion between the remaining kidney of donors compared with the transplanted kidney. Furthermore, a potential long-term protective effect of losartan on perfusion was seen between transplant recipients. The ability of renal ASL to track the fate of perfusion in the transplanted and remaining kidney elegantly demonstrates the potential of the technique. Longitudinal studies using renal ASL have also been described in the setting of renin–angiotensin system blockade [12, 24, 46], hyperglycaemia [44], renal denervation [45] and extracorporeal lithotripsy [53].

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Renal ASL is a powerful tool for non-invasive measurement of regional renal perfusion in humans, with a typical in plane resolution of 2–3 mm. Renal perfusion lacks a gold standard but the ASL technique has been validated against microspheres in animals and para-aminohippurate clearance in humans. Renal ASL yielded reproducible measurements of renal cortical and medullary perfusion in the studies that have been performed to date. Reproducibility is poorer in the medulla than the cortex, as expected. Renal ASL is highly suited to repeated measurements and longitudinal studies demonstrating the potential prognostic ability of renal ASL are anticipated. The technique shows great promise as part of multiparametric studies of renal structure and function that might inform drug development and be clinically informative. At the time of this review, there are insufficient data comparing several renal ASL variants to make definitive recommendations on the best practice for ASL data acquisition in terms of the optimal ASL labelling scheme, image readout strategy and motion compensation method. Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence and no direct comparisons to resolve whether background suppression improves ASL quantification. Multidelay acquisitions to model arterial transit time cannot be currently universally recommended as these are more technically challenging; however, they should be considered where desired. The most historically popular technique is a pulsed ASL scheme with a single-slice balanced steady-state free precession readout and motion correction. However, there are well-supported rationales for more recently described alternative approaches that suit whole kidney perfusion measurements. There is also variation in how ASL images are analysed to quantify perfusion values in terms of assumptions in the kinetic model and how renal cortex and medulla regions are defined. The lack of a harmonized approach to image acquisition, analysis and reporting might hinder progress in the clinical validation and use of the technique. Thus we have made some recommendations in Table 3. It is important to emphasize that in longitudinal studies the precise way in which ASL is applied is likely to matter less than ensuring consistency of experimental conditions for repeated measures to maintain reproducibility. The priority areas in which more studies are urgently needed include animal studies to validate ASL against reference renal perfusion techniques such as transit time ultrasound flowmetry; human longitudinal multiparametric MRI studies that combine ASL perfusion with other MRI measures outlined in this issue [53–55]; clinical studies that use measured rather than eGFR and studies that validate renal perfusion against a clinical outcome, such as a change in GFR, fibrosis or graft survival. In conclusion, renal ASL is almost ready for clinical use. Collaborative projects such as the COST action PARENCHIMA will accelerate clinical validation of renal ASL as part of a multiparametric assessment of renal perfusion, oxygenation, oedema and fibrosis.

Table 3.

Minimum recommendations for reporting renal ASL studies

Outline patient preparation (e.g. hydration)
Outline subject characteristics
Measure systemic haemodynamics ( e.g. blood pressure)
Report current medications (especially those targeting the renin–  angio-tensin system)
Outline the labelling scheme
Report the duration of the post-label delay
Outline the readout scheme
Explicitly outline how motion compensation was handled
Explicitly state whether background suppression was applied
Acquire a T1 map to use in the kinetic model
Describe how the region of interest for ASL analysis is selected
Report cortical and medullary values separately
Report within-subject reproducibility for your site preferably both  within and between visits
Measure other renal MRI parameters if possible (e.g. BOLD, diffusion)
Outline patient preparation (e.g. hydration)
Outline subject characteristics
Measure systemic haemodynamics ( e.g. blood pressure)
Report current medications (especially those targeting the renin–  angio-tensin system)
Outline the labelling scheme
Report the duration of the post-label delay
Outline the readout scheme
Explicitly outline how motion compensation was handled
Explicitly state whether background suppression was applied
Acquire a T1 map to use in the kinetic model
Describe how the region of interest for ASL analysis is selected
Report cortical and medullary values separately
Report within-subject reproducibility for your site preferably both  within and between visits
Measure other renal MRI parameters if possible (e.g. BOLD, diffusion)
Table 3.

Minimum recommendations for reporting renal ASL studies

Outline patient preparation (e.g. hydration)
Outline subject characteristics
Measure systemic haemodynamics ( e.g. blood pressure)
Report current medications (especially those targeting the renin–  angio-tensin system)
Outline the labelling scheme
Report the duration of the post-label delay
Outline the readout scheme
Explicitly outline how motion compensation was handled
Explicitly state whether background suppression was applied
Acquire a T1 map to use in the kinetic model
Describe how the region of interest for ASL analysis is selected
Report cortical and medullary values separately
Report within-subject reproducibility for your site preferably both  within and between visits
Measure other renal MRI parameters if possible (e.g. BOLD, diffusion)
Outline patient preparation (e.g. hydration)
Outline subject characteristics
Measure systemic haemodynamics ( e.g. blood pressure)
Report current medications (especially those targeting the renin–  angio-tensin system)
Outline the labelling scheme
Report the duration of the post-label delay
Outline the readout scheme
Explicitly outline how motion compensation was handled
Explicitly state whether background suppression was applied
Acquire a T1 map to use in the kinetic model
Describe how the region of interest for ASL analysis is selected
Report cortical and medullary values separately
Report within-subject reproducibility for your site preferably both  within and between visits
Measure other renal MRI parameters if possible (e.g. BOLD, diffusion)

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary data are available at ndt online.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article is based upon work from COST Action Magnetic Resonance Imaging Biomarkers for Chronic Kidney Disease (PARENCHIMA), funded by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). www.cost.eu. For additional information please visit PARENCHIMA project website: www.renalmri.org

FUNDING

A.O. is funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Lectureship (CL-2014-06-003) and an Academy of Medical Sciences grant (SGL015\1019). F.N. acknowledges funding from the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity (V0318), Kidney Research UK (ST1/2013) and support from the NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre. A.A.H. acknowledges funding from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (14951). S.T.F. and C.E.B. acknowledge funding from Kidney Research UK (IN_011_20170303). M.A.F. acknowledges funding from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (IEDI-2017-00826). The literature search support of Elham Aalai of Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust is acknowledged.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None declared. This paper has not been published previously in whole or part.

REFERENCES

1

Evans
RG
,
Gardiner
BS
,
Smith
DW
et al.
Intrarenal oxygenation: unique challenges and the biophysical basis of homeostasis
.
Am J Physiol Renal Physiol
2008
;
295
:
F1259
F1270

2

Evans
RG
,
Ince
C
,
Joles
JA
et al.
Haemodynamic influences on kidney oxygenation: clinical implications of integrative physiology
.
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol
2013
;
40
:
106
122

3

Pallone
TL
,
Edwards
A
,
Mattson
DL.
Renal medullary circulation
.
Compr Physiol
2012
;
2
:
97
140

4

Ow
CPC
,
Ngo
JP
,
Ullah
MM
et al.
Renal hypoxia in kidney disease: cause or consequence?
Acta Physiol (Oxf)
2018
;
222
:
e12999

5

Beierwaltes
WH
,
Harrison-Bernard
LM
,
Sullivan
JC
et al.
Assessment of renal function; clearance, the renal microcirculation, renal blood flow, and metabolic balance
.
Compr Physiol
2013
;
3
:
165
200

6

Nery
F
,
Gordon
I
,
Thomas
D.
Non-invasive renal perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling MRI: challenges and opportunities
.
Diagnostics
2018
;
8
:
2

7

Lerman
LO
,
Taler
SJ
,
Textor
SC
et al.
Computed tomography-derived intrarenal blood flow in renovascular and essential hypertension
.
Kidney Int
1996
;
49
:
846
854

8

Maioli
M
,
Toso
A
,
Leoncini
M
et al.
Persistent renal damage after contrast-induced acute kidney injury: incidence, evolution, risk factors, and prognosis
.
Circulation
2012
;
125
:
3099
3107

9

Fraum
TJ
,
Ludwig
DR
,
Bashir
MR
et al.
Gadolinium-based contrast agents: A comprehensive risk assessment
.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2017
;
46
:
338
353

10

Warmuth
C
,
Nagel
S
,
Hegemann
O
et al.
Accuracy of blood flow values determined by arterial spin labeling: a validation study in isolated porcine kidneys
.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2007
;
26
:
353
358

11

Artz
NS
,
Wentland
AL
,
Sadowski
EA
et al.
Comparing kidney perfusion using noncontrast arterial spin labeling MRI and microsphere methods in an interventional swine model
.
Invest Radiol
2011
;
46
:
124
131

12

Ritt
M
,
Janka
R
,
Schneider
MP
et al.
Measurement of kidney perfusion by magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of MRI with arterial spin labeling to para-aminohippuric acid plasma clearance in male subjects with metabolic syndrome
.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
2010
;
25
:
1126
1133

13

Shimizu
K
,
Kosaka
N
,
Fujiwara
Y
et al.
Arterial transit time-corrected renal blood flow measurement with pulsed continuous arterial spin labeling MR imaging
.
Magn Reson Med Sci
2017
;
16
:
38
44

14

Cutajar
M
,
Thomas
DL
,
Hales
PW
et al.
Comparison of ASL and DCE MRI for the non-invasive measurement of renal blood flow: quantification and reproducibility
.
Eur Radiol
2014
;
24
:
1300
1308

15

Conlin
CC
,
Oesingmann
N
,
Bolster
B
Jr.
et al.
Renal plasma flow (RPF) measured with multiple-inversion-time arterial spin labeling (ASL) and tracer kinetic analysis: validation against a dynamic contrast-enhancement method
.
Magn Reson Imaging
2017
;
37
:
51
55

16

Wu
WC
,
Su
MY
,
Chang
CC
et al.
Renal perfusion 3-T MR imaging: a comparative study of arterial spin labeling and dynamic contrast-enhanced techniques
.
Radiology
2011
;
261
:
845
853

17

Artz
NS
,
Sadowski
EA
,
Wentland
AL
et al.
Reproducibility of renal perfusion MR imaging in native and transplanted kidneys using non-contrast arterial spin labeling
.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2011
;
33
:
1414
1421

18

Chowdhury
AH
,
Cox
EF
,
Francis
ST
et al.
A randomized, controlled, double-blind crossover study on the effects of 2-L infusions of 0.9% saline and plasma-lyte(R) 148 on renal blood flow velocity and renal cortical tissue perfusion in healthy volunteers
.
Ann Surg
2012
;
256
:
18
24

19

Chowdhury
AH
,
Cox
EF
,
Francis
ST
et al.
A randomized, controlled, double-blind crossover study on the effects of 1-L infusions of 6% hydroxyethyl starch suspended in 0.9% saline (voluven) and a balanced solution (Plasma Volume Redibag) on blood volume, renal blood flow velocity, and renal cortical tissue perfusion in healthy volunteers
.
Ann Surg
2014
;
259
:
881
887

20

Cox
EF
,
Buchanan
CE
,
Bradley
CR
et al.
Multiparametric renal magnetic resonance imaging: validation, interventions, and alterations in chronic kidney disease
.
Front Physiol
2017
;
8
:
696

21

Cutajar
M
,
Thomas
DL
,
Banks
T
et al.
Repeatability of renal arterial spin labelling MRI in healthy subjects
.
Magma
2012
;
25
:
145
153

22

Gardener
AG
,
Francis
ST.
Multislice perfusion of the kidneys using parallel imaging: image acquisition and analysis strategies
.
Magn Reson Med
2010
;
63
:
1627
1636

23

Getzin
T
,
May
M
,
Schmidbauer
M
et al.
Usability of functional MRI in clinical studies for fast and reliable assessment of renal perfusion and quantification of hemodynamic effects on the kidney
.
J Clin Pharmacol
2018
;
58
:
466
473

24

Gillis
KA
,
McComb
C
,
Foster
JE
et al.
Inter-study reproducibility of arterial spin labelling magnetic resonance imaging for measurement of renal perfusion in healthy volunteers at 3 Tesla
.
BMC Nephrol
2014
;
15
:
23

25

Hammon
M
,
Janka
R
,
Siegl
C
et al.
Reproducibility of kidney perfusion measurements with arterial spin labeling at 1.5 Tesla MRI combined with semiautomatic segmentation for differential cortical and medullary assessment
.
Medicine (Baltimore)
2016
;
95
:
e3083

26

Karger
N
,
Biederer
J
,
Lusse
S
et al.
Quantitation of renal perfusion using arterial spin labeling with FAIR-ULFARE
.
Magn Reson Imaging
2000
;
18
:
641
647

27

Kim
DW
,
Shim
WH
,
Yoon
SK
et al.
Measurement of arterial transit time and renal blood flow using pseudocontinuous ASL MRI with multiple post-labeling delays: feasibility, reproducibility, and variation
.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2017
;
46
:
813
819

28

Lanzman
RS
,
Wittsack
HJ
,
Martirosian
P
et al.
Quantification of renal allograft perfusion using arterial spin labeling MRI: initial results
.
Eur Radiol
2010
;
20
:
1485
1491

29

Rapacchi
S
,
Smith
RX
,
Wang
Y
et al.
Towards the identification of multi-parametric quantitative MRI biomarkers in lupus nephritis
.
Magn Reson Imaging
2015
;
33
:
1066
1074

30

Robson
PM
,
Madhuranthakam
AJ
,
Dai
W
et al.
Strategies for reducing respiratory motion artifacts in renal perfusion imaging with arterial spin labeling
.
Magn Reson Med
2009
;
61
:
1374
1387

31

Robson
PM
,
Madhuranthakam
AJ
,
Smith
MP
et al.
Volumetric arterial spin-labeled perfusion imaging of the kidneys with a three-dimensional fast spin echo acquisition
.
Acad Radiol
2016
;
23
:
144
154

32

Li
LP
,
Tan
H
,
Thacker
JM
et al.
Evaluation of renal blood flow in chronic kidney disease using arterial spin labeling perfusion magnetic resonance imaging
.
Kidney Int Rep
2017
;
2
:
36
43

33

Wang
J
,
Zhang
Y
,
Yang
X
et al.
Hemodynamic effects of furosemide on renal perfusion as evaluated by ASL-MRI
.
Acad Radiol
2012
;
19
:
1194
1200

34

Boss
A
,
Martirosian
P
,
Graf
H
et al.
High resolution MR perfusion imaging of the kidneys at 3 Tesla without administration of contrast media
.
Rofo
2005
;
177
:
1625
1630

35

Breidthardt
T
,
Cox
EF
,
Squire
I
et al.
The pathophysiology of the chronic cardiorenal syndrome: a magnetic resonance imaging study
.
Eur Radiol
2015
;
25
:
1684
1691

36

Gillis
KA
,
McComb
C
,
Patel
RK
et al.
Non-contrast renal magnetic resonance imaging to assess perfusion and corticomedullary differentiation in health and chronic kidney disease
.
Nephron
2016
;
133
:
183
192

37

Michaely
HJ
,
Schoenberg
SO
,
Ittrich
C
et al.
Renal disease: value of functional magnetic resonance imaging with flow and perfusion measurements
.
Invest Radiol
2004
;
39
:
698
705

38

Mora-Gutierrez
JM
,
Garcia-Fernandez
N
,
Slon Roblero
MF
et al.
Arterial spin labeling MRI is able to detect early hemodynamic changes in diabetic nephropathy
.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2017
;
46
:
1810
1817

39

Rossi
C
,
Artunc
F
,
Martirosian
P
et al.
Histogram analysis of renal arterial spin labeling perfusion data reveals differences between volunteers and patients with mild chronic kidney disease
.
Invest Radiol
2012
;
47
:
490
496

40

Tan
H
,
Koktzoglou
I
,
Prasad
PV.
Renal perfusion imaging with two-dimensional navigator gated arterial spin labeling
.
Magn Reson Med
2014
;
71
:
570
579

41

Dong
J
,
Yang
L
,
Su
T
et al.
Quantitative assessment of acute kidney injury by noninvasive arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI: a pilot study
.
Sci China Life Sci
2013
;
56
:
745
750

42

Skeoch
S
,
Hubbard Cristinacce
PL
,
Dobbs
M
et al.
Evaluation of non-contrast MRI biomarkers in lupus nephritis
.
Clin Exp Rheumatol
2017
;
35
:
954
958

43

Hirshberg
B
,
Qiu
M
,
Cali
AM
et al.
Pancreatic perfusion of healthy individuals and type 1 diabetic patients as assessed by magnetic resonance perfusion imaging
.
Diabetologia
2009
;
52
:
1561
1565

44

Ott
C
,
Janka
R
,
Schmid
A
et al.
Vascular and renal hemodynamic changes after renal denervation
.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol
2013
;
8
:
1195
1201

45

Schneider
MP
,
Janka
R
,
Ziegler
T
et al.
Reversibility of the effects of aliskiren in the renal versus systemic circulation
.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol
2012
;
7
:
258
264

46

Heusch
P
,
Wittsack
HJ
,
Blondin
D
et al.
Functional evaluation of transplanted kidneys using arterial spin labeling MRI
.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2014
;
40
:
84
89

47

Hueper
K
,
Gueler
F
,
Brasen
JH
et al.
Functional MRI detects perfusion impairment in renal allografts with delayed graft function
.
Am J Physiol Renal Physiol
2015
;
308
:
F1444
F1451

48

Artz
NS
,
Sadowski
EA
,
Wentland
AL
et al.
Arterial spin labeling MRI for assessment of perfusion in native and transplanted kidneys
.
Magn Reson Imaging
2011
;
29
:
74
82

49

Ren
T
,
Wen
CL
,
Chen
LH
et al.
Evaluation of renal allografts function early after transplantation using intravoxel incoherent motion and arterial spin labeling MRI
.
Magn Reson Imaging
2016
;
34
:
908
914

50

Niles
DJ
,
Artz
NS
,
Djamali
A
et al.
Longitudinal assessment of renal perfusion and oxygenation in transplant donor-recipient pairs using arterial spin labeling and blood oxygen level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging
.
Invest Radiol
2016
;
51
:
113
120

51

Cutajar
M
,
Hilton
R
,
Olsburgh
J
et al.
Renal blood flow using arterial spin labelling MRI and calculated filtration fraction in healthy adult kidney donors pre-nephrectomy and post-nephrectomy
.
Eur Radiol
2015
;
25
:
2390
2396

52

Abd Ellah
M
,
Kremser
C
,
Pallwein
L
et al.
Changes of renal blood flow after ESWL: assessment by ASL MR imaging, contrast enhanced MR imaging, and renal resistive index
.
Eur J Radiol
2010
;
76
:
124
128

53

Pruijm
M
,
Mendichovszky
IA
,
Liss
P
et al.
Renal blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging to measure renal tissue oxygenation: a statement paper and systematic review
.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
2018
;
33
(
Suppl 2
):
ii22
ii28

54

Caroli
A
,
Schneider
M
,
Friedli
I
et al.
Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to assess diffuse renal pathology: a systematic review and statement paper
.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
2018
;
33
(
Suppl 2
):
ii29
ii40

55

Wolf
M
,
de Boer
A
,
Sharma
K
et al.
Magnetic resonance imaging T1- and T2-mapping to assess renal structure and function: a systematic review and statement paper
.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
2018
;
33
(
Suppl 2
):
ii41
ii50

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Supplementary data

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.