Balloon angioplasty or medical therapy for hypertensive patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Controlled clinical trials of the treatment of acute myocardial infarction offer a unique opportunity for the study of the potential influence on outcome of bias in treatment assignment. A group of 145 papers was divided into those in which the randomization process was blinded (57 papers), those in which it may have been unblinded (45 papers), and those in which the controls were selected by a nonrandom process (43 papers). At least one prognostic variable was maldistributed (P less than 0.05) in 14.0 per cent of the blinded-randomization studies, in 26.7 per cent of the unblinded-randomization studies, and in 58.1 per cent of the nonrandomized studies. Differences in case-fatality rates between treatment and control groups (P less than 0.05) were found in 8.8 per cent of the blinded-randomization studies, 24.4 per cent of the unblinded-randomization studies, and 58.1 per cent of the nonrandomized studies. These data emphasize the importance of keeping those who recruit patients for clinical trials from suspecting which treatment will be assigned to the patient under consideration.

Patients with hypertension and renal-artery stenosis are often treated with percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty. However, the long-term effects of this procedure on blood pressure are not well understood. We randomly assigned 106 patients with hypertension who had atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis (defined as a decrease in luminal diameter of 50 percent or more) and a serum creatinine concentration of 2.3 mg per deciliter (200 micromol per liter) or less to undergo percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty or to receive drug therapy. To be included, patients also had to have a diastolic blood pressure of 95 mm Hg or higher despite treatment with two antihypertensive drugs or an increase of at least 0.2 mg per deciliter (20 micromol per liter) in the serum creatinine concentration during treatment with an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Blood pressure, doses of antihypertensive drugs, and renal function were assessed at 3 and 12 months, and patency of the renal artery was assessed at 12 months. At base line, the mean (+/-SD) systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 179+/-25 and 104+/-10 mm Hg, respectively, in the angioplasty group and 180+/-23 and 103+/-8 mm Hg, respectively, in the drug-therapy group. At three months, the blood pressures were similar in the two groups (169+/-28 and 99+/-12 mm Hg, respectively, in the 56 patients in the angioplasty group and 176+/-31 and 101+/-14 mm Hg, respectively, in the 50 patients in the drug-therapy group; P=0.25 for the comparison of systolic pressure and P=0.36 for the comparison of diastolic pressure between the two groups); at the time, patients in the angioplasty group were taking 2.1+/-1.3 defined daily doses of medication and those in the drug-therapy group were taking 3.2+/-1.5 daily doses (P<0.001). In the drug-therapy group, 22 patients underwent balloon angioplasty after three months because of persistent hypertension despite treatment with three or more drugs or because of a deterioration in renal function. According to intention-to-treat analysis, at 12 months, there were no significant differences between the angioplasty and drug-therapy groups in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, daily drug doses, or renal function. In the treatment of patients with hypertension and renal-artery stenosis, angioplasty has little advantage over antihypertensive-drug therapy.

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for ostial atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis has poor results. Angioplasty with stent placement (PTAS) may be more effective. We undertook a randomised prospective study to compare PTA with PTAS in patients with ostial atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Patients with ostial atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis were assigned to receive PTA or PTAS. Secondary PTAS was allowed if PTA failed immediately or during 6 months' follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat. 42 patients were assigned PTA and 43 were assigned PTAS, but one patient in the PTAS group was excluded from the study. Primary success rate (<50% residual stenosis) of PTA was 57% (24 patients) compared with 88% (37 patients) for PTAS (difference between groups 31% [95% CI 12-50]). Complications were similar. At 6 months, the primary patency rate was 29% (12 patients) for PTA, and 75% (30 patients) for PTAS (46% [24-68]). Restenosis after a successful primary procedure occurred in 48% of patients for PTA and 14% for PTAS (34% [11-58]). 12 patients underwent secondary stenting for primary or late failure of PTA within the follow-up period: success was similar to that of primary PTAS. Evaluation based on intention to treat showed no difference in clinical results at six months for PTA or PTAS. PTAS is a better technique than PTA to achieve vessel patency in ostial atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Primary PTAS and primary PTA plus PTAS as rescue therapy have similar outcomes. However, the burden of reintervention after PTA outweighs the potential saving in stents, so primary PTAS is a better approach to use.