Author(s):
|
Bax, L.; Woittiez, A.J.J.; Kouwenberg, H.J.; Mali, W.P.Th.; Buskens, E.; Beek, F.J.; Braam, B.;
Huysmans, F.T.M.
;
Schultze Kool, L.J.
;
Rutten, M.J.C.M.
; Doorenbos, C.J.; Aarts, J.C.; Rabelink, T.J.; Plouin, P.F.; Raynaud, A.; Montfrans, G.A. van; Reekers, J.A.; Meiracker, A.H. van den; Pattynama, P.M.; Ven, P.J. van der; Vroegindeweij, D.;
Kroon, A.A.
; Haan, M.W. de;
Postma, C.T.
; Beutler, J.J.
|
Subject:
|
NCEBP 14: Cardiovascular diseases IGMD 9: Renal disorder |
Organization:
|
Nephrology Radiology Internal Medicine |
Journal title:
|
Annals of Internal Medicine C.2
|
Abstract:
|
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the efficacy and safety of renal artery stenting in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) and impaired renal function. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of stent placement in patients with ARAS and impaired renal function. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. Randomization was centralized and computer generated, and allocation was assigned by e-mail. Patients, providers, and persons who assessed outcomes were not blinded to treatment assignment. SETTING: 10 European medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: 140 patients with creatinine clearance less than 80 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) and ARAS of 50% or greater. INTERVENTION: Stent placement and medical treatment (64 patients) or medical treatment only (76 patients). Medical treatment consisted of antihypertensive treatment, a statin, and aspirin. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Forty-six of 64 patients assigned to stent placement had the procedure. Ten of the 64 patients (16%) in the stent placement group and 16 patients (22%) in the medication group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.61]). Serious complications occurred in the stent group, including 2 procedure-related deaths (3%), 1 late death secondary to an infected hematoma, and 1 patient who required dialysis secondary to cholesterol embolism. The groups did not differ for other secondary end points. LIMITATION: Many patients were falsely identified as having renal artery stenosis greater than 50% by noninvasive imaging and did not ultimately require stenting. CONCLUSION: Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with ARAS, focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.
|