Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
7252732
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
Clinical outcomes after percutaneous revascularization versus medical management in patients with significant renal artery stenosis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Author(s)
Kumbhani, DJ; Bavry, AA; Harvey, JE; de Souza, R; Scarpioni, R; Bhatt, DL; Kapadia, SR; ,
Year
2011
Is Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Journal
American Heart Journal
ISSN:
0002-8703
EISSN:
1097-6744
Publisher
MOSBY-ELSEVIER
Location
NEW YORK
Page Numbers
622-+
PMID
21392620
DOI
10.1016/j.ahj.2010.12.006
Web of Science Id
WOS:000288156400030
Abstract
Background We sought to systematically evaluate whether percutaneous revascularization is associated with additional clinical benefit in patients with renal artery stenosis (RAS) as compared with medical management alone.Methods We included randomized controlled trials that compared percutaneous revascularization in addition to medical therapy versus medical management alone in patients with RAS. Six trials with 1,208 patients were included.Results At a mean follow-up of 29 months, there was no change in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.20 mm Hg, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.58 mm Hg) or diastolic blood pressure (WMD = -1.60 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.22 to 1.02 mm Hg) from baseline in the percutaneous revascularization arm compared with the medical management arm. There was a reduction in the mean number of antihypertensive medications (WMD = -0.26, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.13, P b.001), but not serum creatinine (WMD = -0.14 mg/ dL, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.007 mg/ dL), in the percutaneous revascularization arm at the end of follow-up. Percutaneous revascularization was not associated with a significant difference in all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.96, 95% CI 0.74-1.25), congestive heart failure (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.56-1.13), stroke (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.50-1.47), or worsening renal function (RR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.67-1.23) as compared with medical management.Conclusions In patients with RAS, percutaneous renal revascularization in addition to medical therapy may result in a lower requirement for antihypertensive medications, but not with improvements in serum creatinine or clinical outcomes, as compared with medical management over an intermediate period of follow-up. Further studies are needed to identify the appropriate patient population most likely to benefit from its use. (Am Heart J 2011; 161: 622-630. e1.)
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity