Keng-Wei LiangJhih-Wei ChenHsin-Hui HuangChun-Hung SuYeu-Sheng TyanTeng-Fu Tsao2026-01-292026-01-292017-0710.1097/RCT.0000000000000574https://scholars.csmu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/3554<jats:sec> <jats:title>Objective</jats:title> <jats:p>The aims of this study were to evaluate the performance of noncontrast magnetic resonance angiography (NC MRA) for detecting renal artery stenosis (RAS) as compared with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE MRA) and to evaluate the clinical feasibility, technical success rate, and performance of NC MRA for detecting RAS as compared with CE MRA.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>Thirty-six subjects who underwent NC MRA and/or CE MRA were enrolled. Feasibility, technical success rate, and image quality scores were compared. Diagnostic ability was calculated using conventional angiography as a reference.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>Noncontrast MRA had higher feasibility and technical success rates than CE MRA did (100% and 97.2% vs 83.3% and 90%, respectively). Noncontrast MRA yielded significantly better image quality in motion artifact (<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic> = 0.016). The diagnostic ability for detecting RAS is without significant difference between NC MRA and CE MRA.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title> <jats:p>Although NC MRA and CE MRA demonstrated comparable ability in diagnosing RAS, NC MRA achieved better technical success rates, feasibility, and image quality in motion artifacts than CE MRA did.</jats:p> </jats:sec>journal-article