Endovascular Versus Medical Management of Atherosclerotic Renovascular Disease: Update and Emerging Concepts

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Atherosclerotic renovascular disease is the most frequent cause of renovascular hypertension and its prevalence increases with age and in specific subset of patients, such as those with end-stage chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and coronary artery disease. Besides hypertension, atherosclerotic renovascular disease is responsible for several clinical manifestations, including life-threatening conditions, such as recurrent flash pulmonary edema, rapidly progressive chronic kidney disease, or acute kidney injury. Atherosclerotic renovascular disease is usually part of a more diffuse atherosclerotic process and requires a combination therapy including antihypertensive, antiplatelet and lipid-lowering agents, as well as optimization of antidiabetic treatment, if needed. Besides medical therapy, percutaneous renal angioplasty was supposed to be the most effective therapy for atherosclerotic renovascular disease, by leading to blood flow restoration. However, despite an apparently solid rationale, several randomized clinical trials failed to confirm the favorable effects of percutaneous renal angioplasty on blood pressure control, kidney function, cardiovascular and renal outcomes, previously reported in observational, retrospective and single-center cohorts, switching off the enthusiasm for this procedure. Several studies’ limitations may partly account for this failure, including heterogeneity of diagnostic techniques, overestimation of the degree of renal artery stenosis, inappropriate timing of revascularization, multiple protocol revisions, frequent crossovers, and most importantly exclusion of patients at higher likelihood to respond to angioplasty. The purpose of this review is to summarize studies’ potential weaknesses and provide guidance to the clinician for identification of patients who may benefit most from revascularization.

Related collections

Most cited references 103

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension

Bryan P. Williams, Giuseppe Mancia, Wilko Spiering … (2018)

0 comments Cited 2573 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis.

Keith Wheatley, Natalie Ives, Richard Gray … (2009)

Percutaneous revascularization of the renal arteries improves patency in atherosclerotic renovascular disease, yet evidence of a clinical benefit is limited. In a randomized, unblinded trial, we assigned 806 patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease either to undergo revascularization in addition to receiving medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. The primary outcome was renal function, as measured by the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level (a measure that has a linear relationship with creatinine clearance). Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, the time to renal and major cardiovascular events, and mortality. The median follow-up was 34 months. During a 5-year period, the rate of progression of renal impairment (as shown by the slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level) was -0.07x10(-3) liters per micromole per year in the revascularization group, as compared with -0.13x10(-3) liters per micromole per year in the medical-therapy group, a difference favoring revascularization of 0.06x10(-3) liters per micromole per year (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.002 to 0.13; P=0.06). Over the same time, the mean serum creatinine level was 1.6 micromol per liter (95% CI, -8.4 to 5.2 [0.02 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.06]) lower in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group. There was no significant between-group difference in systolic blood pressure; the decrease in diastolic blood pressure was smaller in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group. The two study groups had similar rates of renal events (hazard ratio in the revascularization group, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.40; P=0.88), major cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19; P=0.61), and death (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P=0.46). Serious complications associated with revascularization occurred in 23 patients, including 2 deaths and 3 amputations of toes or limbs. We found substantial risks but no evidence of a worthwhile clinical benefit from revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN59586944.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

0 comments Cited 186 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis.

Christopher J. Cooper, Timothy P Murphy, Donald E Cutlip … (2014)

Atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis is a common problem in the elderly. Despite two randomized trials that did not show a benefit of renal-artery stenting with respect to kidney function, the usefulness of stenting for the prevention of major adverse renal and cardiovascular events is uncertain. We randomly assigned 947 participants who had atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis and either systolic hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive drugs or chronic kidney disease to medical therapy plus renal-artery stenting or medical therapy alone. Participants were followed for the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular and renal events (a composite end point of death from cardiovascular or renal causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progressive renal insufficiency, or the need for renal-replacement therapy). Over a median follow-up period of 43 months (interquartile range, 31 to 55), the rate of the primary composite end point did not differ significantly between participants who underwent stenting in addition to receiving medical therapy and those who received medical therapy alone (35.1% and 35.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.17; P=0.58). There were also no significant differences between the treatment groups in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. During follow-up, there was a consistent modest difference in systolic blood pressure favoring the stent group (-2.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.4 to -0.2; P=0.03). Renal-artery stenting did not confer a significant benefit with respect to the prevention of clinical events when added to comprehensive, multifactorial medical therapy in people with atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis and hypertension or chronic kidney disease. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00081731.).