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

BackgroundWe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAt 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.ConclusionsIn 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.