Clinical outcomes after percutaneous revascularization versus medical management in patients with significant renal artery stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

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 < .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.