• Gowri Raman, Gaelen P Adam, Christopher W Halladay, Valerie N Langberg, Ijeoma A Azodo, and Ethan M Balk.
• From Tufts Center for Clinical Evidence Synthesis, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Center for Evidence-based Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; and College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
• Ann. Intern. Med. 2016 Nov 1; 165 (9): 635-649.

BackgroundAtherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) is associated with high blood pressure (BP), decreased kidney function, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and death.PurposeTo compare benefits and harms of percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty with stent placement (PTRAS) versus medical therapy alone in adults with ARAS.Data SourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1993 to 16 March 2016; gray literature; and prior systematic reviews.Study SelectionRandomized, controlled trials (RCTs); nonrandomized, comparative studies (NRCSs); single-group studies; and selected case reports that reported all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, RRT, kidney function, BP, and adverse events.Data ExtractionSix researchers extracted data on design, interventions, outcomes, and study quality into a Web-based database.Data SynthesisEighty-three studies met eligibility criteria. In 5 of 7 RCTs, PTRAS and medical therapy led to similar BP control in patients with ARAS, and no RCTs showed statistically significant differences in kidney function, mortality, RRT, cardiovascular events, or pulmonary edema. Eight NRCSs had more variable results, finding mostly no significant differences in mortality, RRT, or cardiovascular events but heterogeneous effects on kidney function and BP. Procedure-related adverse events were rare, and medication-related adverse events were not reported. Two RCTs found no patient characteristics that were associated with outcomes with either PTRAS or medical therapy. Single-group studies found various but inconsistent factors that predict outcomes. Case reports provided examples of clinical improvement after PTRAS in patients with acute decompensation.LimitationLimited clinical applicability and power in RCTs, and possible publication bias and lack of adjusted analyses in NRCSs.ConclusionThe strength of evidence regarding the relative benefits and harms of PTRAS versus medical therapy alone for patients with ARAS is low. Studies have generally focused on patients with less severe ARAS.Primary Funding SourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

19 keywords...

hide…