Printer Friendly

Factors Associated with Outcomes of Percutaneous Transluminal Renal Angioplasty in Patients with Renal Artery Stenosis: A Retrospective Analysis of 50 Consecutive Cases.

1. Introduction

Renal artery stenosis (RAS) is a cause of renovascular hypertension (RVHT) and ischemic nephropathy and has been demonstrated to be a predictor of future cardiovascular events [1]. Percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty (PTRA) has been one of the common treatments for RAS despite recent developments in therapeutics [2, 3]. Using retrospective data, Bonelli et al. reported that 60-90% of 320 RAS patients who underwent PTRA exhibited some benefits after PTRA [4]. The efficacy of PTRA for the treatment of RVHT differs among causes of RAS, such as atherosclerosis, fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD), and Takayasu arteritis, as well as with or without stent placement. BP lowering effects with a high hypertension cure rate by PTRA are reportedly better in FMD than in atherosclerosis [4]. Cure or improvement rates of RVHT after PTRA are reported to be 8 or 70-76% in atherosclerotic stenosis and 22-24% or 63% in FMD cases, respectively [4-6]. However, most trials failed to demonstrate significant improvement in renal function after PTRA [5].

Two large-scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), ASTRAL (Angioplasty and Stent for Renal Artery Lesions) trial [7], and CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) trial [8] compared PTRA and conventional medication therapy regarding outcomes for BP lowering effects, renal protection (in ASTRAL), and onset of future cardiovascular events (in CORAL). Both studies could not demonstrate any advantages of PTRA compared with conventional medication therapy. STAR (Stent Placement in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal Function), an RCT, which enrolled a relatively small number of patients, also could not demonstrate the renoprotective effects of PTRA in patients with RAS and impaired renal function [9]. Consequently, PTRA for RAS has become less recommended [10].

The current guidelines for atherosclerotic RAS recommend PTRA for patients with hemodynamically significant RAS or with the following conditions: flash pulmonary edema, rapidly declining renal function or refractory hypertension [11-15]. Such patients were excluded from ASTRAL and CORAL.

After ASTRAL and CORAL, physicians, such as cardiologists or radiologists, who handle RAS tend to hesitate to perform PTRA. However, recent recommendations and review articles have demonstrated the importance of PTRA [16,17]. Therefore, therapeutic strategies to treat RAS are confused, and more information about patient selection is needed to perform PTRA. Several reports have clarified the determining factors for PTRA efficacy [18, 19]. Radermacher et al. has reported that a resistive index (RI) > 0.80 evaluated by renal Doppler ultrasonography (RDU) predicted outcomes in BP and renal function after PTRA in patients with RAS whose RA stenosis was over 50% [18]. Therefore, PTRA may be an effective therapy for patients with RAS if it could be performed for patients selected by RI with RDU. As patients with RAS have several features which may affect the prognosis of hypertension and renoprotection, such as the pathogenesis of atherosclerotic RAS, presence of dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus (DM), renal impairment or renal failure, and their atherosclerotic complications of other arteries [20], such conditions should be considered when making strategies for RAS.

There are few reports on the effectiveness of PTRA, and there are even fewer reports of the Japanese or Asian patients. The aim of this study was to clarify factors associated with outcomes in PTRA for RAS patients with hemodynamically significant stenosis, before ASTRAL and CORAL, to reconsider the effectiveness of PTRA for RAS patients.

2. Subjects and Methods

We retrospectively assessed the influences of several factors on clinical courses of patients who had undergone PTRA. The subjects consisted of 50 consecutive patients who had their first PTRA between January 2001 and September 2005 in the National Cardiovascular Research Center in Osaka, Japan. Patients who had undergone two or more rounds of PTRA for restenosis of the treated lesion or progression of opposite-side RAS were excluded. PTRA was indicated for hemodynamically significant RAS with either of the following: (1) peak systolic velocity [greater than or equal to] 1.8m/sec by RDU, (2) diameter or area stenosis rate [greater than or equal to] 75% by magnetic resonance imaging angiography, and (3) prolonged vascular, functional, and distribution phases by renogram. Cases without viability of the affected kidneys (RI evaluated by RDU < 0.8 and/or low distribution of the affected kidney evaluated by renogram) were excluded. Renal artery stenting was done in all cases at the ostial and proximal lesion without distal protection or filtration device. The clinical courses after PTRA in our institute were good overall. Major complications, such as cholesterol crystal embolism, dissection of the renal artery, or other vascular disease, were not observed in the present study subjects.

BP was measured on the days before PTRA (w0) and 1-2 weeks after PTRA (w1). Serum creatinine levels (S-Cre: enzymatic method) were obtained at the day before PTRA (W0), 1-2 weeks after (w1), and 1 year (+/-4 weeks) after PTRA (y1).

Primarily, we compared the change in mean blood pressure (MBP), use of antihypertensive drugs, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between before and after PTRA.

MBP was calculated as follows:

MBP = (Systolic BP + Diastolic BP x 2)/3. (1)

eGFR was calculated by the following formula:

eGFR = 194 x S-[Cre.sup.-1.094] x [age.sup.0.287] (if female subjects, x 0.739). (2)

Successful BP reduction was defined as a 5 mmHg or more reduction in w1 mean BP compared with the measurement at w0 or reduction in the dosage of one or more antihypertensive medicines. Course of renal function (eGFR) was stratified into "not changed or improved" (w0 [greater than or equal to] y1) or "worsened" (w0 < y1).

Additionally, we assessed influences on the BP lowering and renoprotective effects of PTRA by several confounding factors, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), presence of bilateral stenosis, RI in the affected kidney, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), DM (DM: expressing DM pattern in oral glycemic tolerance test or currently prescribed hypoglycemic agent), dyslipidemia, RI: (1--(end diastolic velocity/ peak systolic velocity)) [18], plasma renin activity (PRA), MBP (w0) eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 [m.sup.2]), and the dose of contrast medium by univariate and multivariate analysis. We adapted common log conversion of eGFR and PRA for analysis because they did not follow a standard normal distribution.

All data were analyzed using JMP 9 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC US). All continuous values were expressed as the mean +/- SD and categorical variables were reported as percentages. BP and eGFR were examined. The time courses of BP and eGFR were examined using the paired t-test. Between the groups of the BP lowering effects, categorical variables were compared by analysis, and continuous variables were compared by unpaired t-test. The influence of each parameter on the regression of eGFR was analyzed by unpaired t-test or linear regression analysis. p values < 0.05 were considered as statistical significant.

3. Results

The characteristics of the 50 patients (male 37, female 13) were as follows. All patients were East Asians. Flash pulmonary edema or rapidly declining renal function was not observed on or before admission. Refractory hypertension and uncontrolled BP (SBP [greater than or equal to] 140 and/or DbP [greater than or equal to] 90) despite taking 3 or more antihypertensive drugs, including diuretics, were seen in 8 cases (1 aortitis case and 7 atherosclerotic stenosis cases) among 47 cases (17.0%, 3 of 50 missed BP or drug data from the outpatient clinic before PTRA). Causes of RAS were atherosclerosis (42 cases), FMD (6 cases), and Takayasu aortitis (2 cases), as shown in Table 1. One FMD case was complicated with Moyamoya disease (18-year-old male). The mean age was 61.5 years and mean BMI was 23.1. Twenty-one patients had DM and 8 had IGT. Twenty-seven patients had dyslipidemia. Twenty-one patients (42%) had bilateral RAS, and they were treated with one-step strategy. Mean BP at w0 was 152/80 mmHg, eGFR was 57.2 mL/min/1.73 [m.sup.2], and other characteristics and subgroup characteristics divided by causes of RAS are shown in Table 1. Patients with atherosclerotic lesions were older and had a higher rate of coexisting DM and dyslipidemia. Among all patients, 6 were missing w1 BP measurements and 6 were missing y1 S-Cre measurements. The number of patients with an RI of [greater than or equal to] 0.80 was only 3. There was no significant relationship between stenosis rate and RI (data not shown).

SBP and DBP were significantly reduced from 152.3/ 80.3 mmHg to 132.6/73.2 mmHg (Figure 1(a)) after PTRA, and the BP lowering effects continued until 1 year after. The number of drugs patients had taken was significantly reduced from 1.98 to 1.28 (p < 0.05, n = 47) at the period of 1-2 weeks after PTRA, but the reduction did not last until 1 year after PTRA (1.95p = 0.39n = 42). Mean BP reduction of 5mmHg or more was observed in 29 of 44 patients (66%), and reduced dose of antihypertensive drugs was observed in 23 of 50 (46%). Successful BP reduction was observed in 35 of 48 patients (73%). Limited to cases of atherosclerotic RAS, the reduction in BP remained significant (Figure 1(b)) and the successful BP reduction rate was similar to that of all cases (70% 28/40).

Univariate analysis of predictive and confounding factors for successful BP reduction are shown in Table 2. No items indicated a significant correlation with successful BP reduction.

The changes in average eGFR throughout pre- and post-PTRA and 1 year after are shown in Figure 2. The estimated renal function neither improved nor worsened. Acute renal dysfunction, defined as an S-Cre rise of 0.5 mg/dL or more, was observed in 2 patients with atherosclerotic RAS and type 2 DM. Both patients recovered.

Renal function was "not changed or improved" in 23 of 44 patients (52%) at y1. Univariate analysis of confounding factors for regression of renal function is shown in Table 3(a). Baseline RI was significantly correlated with deterioration of renal function (Figure 3). Presence of "IGT or DM" tended to correlate with deterioration of renal function at y1 (Student's 1-test, p = 0.05). There was a significant correlation between presence of "IGT or DM" and baseline RI (without IGT or DM 0.58 +/- 0.09, with IGT or DM 0.71 +/- 0.11, p < 0.01). We performed multivariate analysis for regression of renal function accounting for age, sex, BMI, baseline RI, and the dose of contrast medium. Baseline RI remained significant for the regression of renal function (Table 4(a)). In the subgroup of atherosclerotic RAS, lower RI showed a significant relationship with regression of renal function after correction for age, sex, BMI, and the dose of contrast medium (Tables 3(b) and 4(b)).

4. Discussion

In the present study, BP was improved in approximately 70% of patients, but the average eGFR remained unchanged from the baseline. We also demonstrated that patients with a higher RI were associated with a poor renal course, as reported by Radermacher et al. [18]. Higher RI is correlated with low eGFR and maybe a consequence of final progressed microangiopathy of the kidneys, which causes poorer renal prognosis.

We also demonstrated that patients with glucose intolerance tended to have worsened renal function. Hyperglycemia causes increased glomerular vascular resistance [21]. RI is reported to be higher in patients with DM than in the control [22]. Our data were in accordance with previous reports.

Although prognosis of RAS is known to be different between atherosclerosis and FMD [4], RI demonstrated a significant relationship with regression of renal function in all atherosclerosis patients in the present study. RI seems to be an important prognostic factor.

On the other hand, 12 subjects in the present study lacked RI measurements. The main reasons why the data were unavailable were undetectable blood flow signals in the kidneys due to severe renal damage or marked stenosis of the renal arteries. There were no significant differences in eGFR values between the subjects with available RI measurements and the subjects for which we could not obtain the RI value. Prognostic factors among such patients remain unclear in the present study.

Indication for PTRA in patients with RAS continues to be still controversial because the results of ASTRAL and CORAL failed to demonstrate beneficial effects of PTRA. It is possible that patients who may have benefited from PTRA were excluded and/or patients with mild stenosis were included in these studies.

Although our subjects, who were expected to have better outcomes than the subjects of ASTRAL or CORAL, demonstrated hemodynamically significant RAS, overall regression of renal function was not observed. In the results of ASTRAL, the decline in renal function over time was slightly slower in the revascularization group, but the difference was not significant after 34 months of follow-up [7, 13]. Renal function in our subjects was preserved for 1 year after PTRA. Therefore, a longer follow-up period seems to be needed to demonstrate the renoprotective effects of PTRA. According to the current guidelines [11-15], PTRA is recommended for patients with flash pulmonary edema, rapidly declining renal function and refractory hypertension, accelerated hypertension, unexplained unilateral small kidney, or renal arteries affected in the bilateral or single-functioning kidney. Both of the studies were criticized for the low applicability of PTRA for their included subjects.

It has been reported that approximately 20-45% of patients with atherosclerotic RAS are affected in the bilateral or single-functioning kidney [7, 23, 24]. In our study, patients with bilateral RA stenosis were observed in a similar proportion (Table 1). Although the results of the RCTs were negative, PTRA may be effective in limited high-risk cases [11, 12, 14]. However, our study could not demonstrate a correlation between bilateral RAS and improvement of renal function. Our study did not confirm the validity of the current recommendations, mainly due to too few cases and large heterogeneity between cases. On the other hand, the current recommendations for PTRA were mainly based on observational studies or consensus of the specialists [11-15]. Evidence based on the randomized trials is still very limited.

The limitations of our study are that it was a retrospective and single center design, with a limited number of subjects, which could not detect the difference in clinical course between causes of the RAS, and lack of control groups. Although we applied PTRA for patients with hemodynamically significant RAS, our criteria for applicability of PTRA were not strict, and therapeutic methods were at each doctor's discretion in each clinical situation. Furthermore, although the smoking habits of patients seem to be one of the determining factors of clinical outcome [25], we were unable to obtain the data in most cases due to a lack of detailed smoking history records.

5. Conclusion

In cases with hemodynamically significant RAS, PTRA was able to lower BP but was not effective in improving renal function.

Higher baseline RI demonstrated a significant correlation with poor renal outcome after PTRA. The presence of IGT or DM maybe associated with poor renal outcome. Caution should be taken when PTRA for RVHT is considered in such patients.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


The authors thank Mrs. Yoko Saito for her excellent assistance.


[1] P. J. Conlon, M. A. Little, K. Pieper, and D. B. Mark, "Severity of renal vascular disease predicts mortality in patients undergoing coronary angiography," Kidney International, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1490-1497, 2001.

[2] R. V. Tiradentes, C. H. Santuzzi, E. R. G. Claudio et al., "Combined Aliskiren and L-arginine treatment reverses renovascular hypertension in an animal model," Hypertension Research, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 471-477, 2015.

[3] M. Oboshi, Y. Naito, H. Sawada et al., "Attenuation of hypertension and renal damage in renovascular hypertensive rats by iron restriction," Hypertension Research, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 832-839, 2016.

[4] F. S. Bonelli, M. A. McKusick, S. C. Textor et al., "Renal artery angioplasty: Technical results and clinical outcome in 320 patients," Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 1041-1052, 1995.

[5] T. Zeller, U. Frank, C. Muller et al., "Predictors of improved renal function after percutaneous stent-supported angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis," Circulation, vol. 108, no. 18, pp. 2244-2249, 2003.

[6] A. Alhadad, I. Mattiasson, K. Ivancev, A. Gottsater, and B. Lindblad, "Revascularisation of renal artery stenosis caused by fibromuscular dysplasia: effects on blood pressure during 7-year follow-up are influenced by duration of hypertension and branch artery stenosis," Journal of Human Hypertension, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 761-767, 2005.

[7] The ASTRAL Investigators, "Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 361, no. 20, pp. 1953-1962, 2009.

[8] C. J. Cooper, T. P. Murphy, A. Matsumoto et al., "Stent revascularization for the prevention of cardiovascular and renal events among patients with renal artery stenosis and systolic hypertension: rationale and design of the CORAL trial," American Heart Journal, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 59-66, 2006.

[9] L. Bax, A.-J. J. Woittiez, W. P. T. M. Mali et al., "Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial," Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 150, no. 12, pp. 840-848, 2009.

[10] I. V. Mohan and V. Bourke, "The management of renal artery stenosis: An alternative interpretation of ASTRAL and CORAL," European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 465-473, 2015.

[11] A. Levin, S. Linas, F. C. Luft, A. B. Chapman, and S. Textor, "Controversies in renal artery stenosis: a review by the American society of nephrology advisory group on hypertension," American Journal of Nephrology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 212-220, 2007.

[12] A. T. Hirsch, Z. J. Haskal, N. R. Hertzer et al., "ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation," Circulation, vol. 113, no. 11, pp. e463-e654, 2006.

[13] R. Erbel, V. Aboyans, C. Boileau et al., "The Task Force on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Artery Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery diseases," European Heart Journal, vol. 35, no. 41, pp. 2873-2926, 2014.

[14] G. Mancia, R. Fagard, K. Narkiewicz et al., "2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)," Journal of Hypertension, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1281-1357, 2013.

[15] K. Shimamoto, K. Ando, T. Fujita et al., "The Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension (JSH 2014)," Hypertension Research, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 253-390, 2014.

[16] C. J. White and S. B. King III, "The chicken little' of renal stent trials: The CORAL trial in perspective," JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 111-113, 2014.

[17] S. M. S. Herrmann, A. Saad, and S. C. Textor, "Management of atherosclerotic renovascular disease after Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL)," Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 366-375, 2015.

[18] J. Radermacher, A. Chavan, J. Bleck et al., "Use of Doppler ultrasonography to predict the outcome of therapy for renalartery stenosis," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 344, no. 6, pp. 410-417, 2001.

[19] G. Soulez, E. Therasse, S. D. Qanadli et al., "Prediction of clinical response after renal angioplasty: Respective value of renal Doppler sonography and scintigraphy," American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 181, no. 4, pp. 1029-1035, 2003.

[20] S. Nakamura, K. Iihara, T. Matayoshi et al., "The incidence and risk factors of renal artery stenosis in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis," Hypertension Research, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 839-844, 2007.

[21] P. K. Carmines, "The renal vascular response to diabetes," Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 85-90, 2010.

[22] Y. Ohta, K. Fujii, H. Arima et al., "Increased renal resistive index in atherosclerosis and diabetic nephropathy assessed by Doppler sonography," Journal of Hypertension, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1905-1911, 2005.

[23] C. J. Cooper, T. P. Murphy, D. E. Cutlip et al., "Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 370, no. 1, pp. 13-22, 2014.

[24] J. M. Rimmer and F. J. Gennari, "Atherosclerotic renovascular disease and progressive renal failure," Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 118, no. 9, pp. 712-719, 1993.

[25] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, Office on Smoking and Health. The health consequences of smoking--50 years of progress, Rockville, USA, 2014.

Tetsutaro Matayoshi [ID], (1,2) Kei Kamide, (1,3) Ryoichi Tanaka, (4,5) Tetsuya Fukuda, (4) Takeshi Horio, (1,6) Yoshio Iwashima [ID], (1) Fumiki Yoshihara, (1) Satoko Nakamura, (1) Hajime Nakahama, (1,7) Yusuke Ohya, (2) and Yuhei Kawano (1,8)

(1) Division of Hypertension and Nephrology, Department of Medicine, National Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan

(2) Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Nephrology and Neurology, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan

(3) Division of Health Sciences, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan

(4) Department of Radiology, National Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan

(5) Division of Cardiovascular Radiology, Department of Radiology, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan

(6) Department of General Internal Medicine 3, Kawasaki Medical School, Okayama, Japan

(7) Diage Kobe Clinic, Hyogo, Japan

(8) Department of Medical Technology, Teikyo University, Fukuoka Campus, Fukuoka, Japan

Correspondence should be addressed to Tetsutaro Matayoshi; b987741@med.u-

Received 21 September 2017; Accepted 7 December 2017; Published 4 January 2018

Academic Editor: Masayoshi Soma

Caption: Figure 1: Change in blood ressure. (a) All cases. (b) Atherosclerotic RAS only. SBP and DBP were significantly reduced after PTRA, and the BP lowering effects continued until 1 year after. RAS: renal artery stenosis; BP: blood pressure; SBP: systolic BP; DBP: diastolic BP; PTRA: percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty; SD: standard deviation.

Caption: Figure 2: Change in eGFR. eGFR was not improved after PTRA. PTRA: percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; SD: standard deviation. * Paired t-tests were performed after log conversion of the values.

Caption: Figure 3: RI and regression of eGFR. Baseline RI was significantly correlated with deterioration of renal function. RI: resistive index. eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate. Regression of eGFR was calculated as log(eGFR y1)--log(eGFR y0).
Table 1: Baseline characteristics. Data are described as "mean [+
or -] standard deviation," or "number (percentage)." M: male; F:
female; BMI: body mass index; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; DM:
diabetes mellitus; PSV: peak systolic velocity; RA: renal arteries;
RI: resistive index; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic
BP; S-Cre: serum creatinine; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration
rate; proteinuria: patients who have uric protein [greater than or
equal to] [+ or -] or urinary albumin/creatinine ratio [greater
than or equal to] 30; chronic kidney disease: patients who have
albuminuria or reduced eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 [m.sup.2]). * Missing
data in one of two cases with aortitis. ** The volume of iopamidol
(300 mg iodine/mL).

                               Atherosclerosis       Fibromuscular

Number (M/F)                      42 (34/8)              6 (1/5)
Age (year)                    68.0 [+ or -] 7.8    27.0 [+ or -] 11.2
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2])            23.3 [+ or -] 3.5    22.3 [+ or -] 0 2.2
IGT or DM (%)                      21 (50)                0(0)
Dyslipidemia (%)                   27 (64)               1 (17)
Calcium channel                    33 (79)               3 (50)
  blockers (%)
ACE inhibitor (%)                   6(14)                 0 (0)
Angiotensin II type 1              12 (29)               1 (17)
  receptor blocker (%)
Diuretics (%)                      13 (31)               1 (17)
[beta]-Blockers (%)                14 (42)               2 (33)
[alpha]-Blockers (%)               4 (10)                 0 (0)
Stenosis rate (%)                   (82)                  (81)
Bilateral stenosis (%)             18 (43)               1 (17)
PSV of the affected RA        2.4 [+ or -] 0.9      2.3 [+ or -] 1.4
Renal/aorta ratio             2.6 [+ or -] 1.0      2.9 [+ or -] 1.4
RI (poststenotic site)       0.66 [+ or -] 0.10     0.47 [+ or -] 0.1
PRA (ng/mL/hr)                4.7 [+ or -] 6.1      7.3 [+ or -] 7.5
PRA (log converted)          0.41 [+ or -] 0.51    0.71 [+ or -] 0.37
PAC (ng/dL)                  16.6 [+ or -] 10.0    35.5 [+ or -] 49.8
SBP (mmHg)                     153 [+ or -] 30       151 [+ or -] 8
DBP (mmHg)                     80 [+ or -] 14         84 [+ or -] 8
Pulse Rate (/min)               67 [+ or -] 7         68 [+ or -] 7
S-Cre (mg/dL)                1.39 [+ or -] 0.66    0.59 [+ or -] 0.13
eGFR (mL/min/1.73            47.2 [+ or -] 23.2    113.6 [+ or -] 34.7
eGFR (log converted)         1.63 [+ or -] 0.20    2.04 [+ or -] 0.13
Proteinuria (%)                24 (60) n = 40         2 (40) n = 5
eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73          31 (78) n = 40          0(0) n = 5
  [m.sup.2] (%)
Chronic Kidney Disease (%)     36 (88) n = 41         2 (40) n = 5
Dose of Contrast Medium      107.6 [+ or -] 41.4   102.3 [+ or -] 19.4
  (mL) **

                                  Aortitis            All subjects

Number (M/F)                       2(2/0)              50 (37/13)
Age (year)                   28.5 [+ or -] 16.3    61.5 [+ or -] 17.2
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2])            21.4 [+ or -] 1.2     23.1 [+ or -] 3.3
IGT or DM (%)                       0(0)                 21 (42)
Dyslipidemia (%)                    0(0)                 28 (56)
Calcium channel                    2 (100)               38 (76)
  blockers (%)
ACE inhibitor (%)                   0 (0)                6 (12)
Angiotensin II type 1               0 (0)                13 (26)
  receptor blocker (%)
Diuretics (%)                       1(50)                15 (30)
[beta]-Blockers (%)                2 (100)               18 (36)
[alpha]-Blockers (%)                0 (0)                 4(8)
Stenosis rate (%)                   (83)                  (82)
Bilateral stenosis (%)             2 (100)               21 (42)
PSV of the affected RA        5.4 [+ or -] 2.4      2.5 [+ or -] 1.2
Renal/aorta ratio             4.1 [+ or -] 1.0      2.7 [+ or -] 0.9
RI (poststenotic site)              0.52*          0.63 [+ or -] 0.12
PRA (ng/mL/hr)                4.2 [+ or -] 1.4      5.0 [+ or -] 6.1
PRA (log converted)          0.65 [+ or -] 0.15    0.45 [+ or -] 0.49
PAC (ng/dL)                   14.2 [+ or -] 2.1    18.8 [+ or -] 19.4
SBP (mmHg)                     159 [+ or -] 27       152 [+ or -] 28
DBP (mmHg)                      86 [+ or -] 8        80 [+ or -] 13
Pulse Rate (/min)               72 [+ or -] 3         67 [+ or -] 7
S-Cre (mg/dL)                0.84 [+ or -] 0.23    1.28 [+ or -] 0.67
eGFR (mL/min/1.73            99.2 [+ or -] 45.2    57.2 [+ or -] 34.1
eGFR (log converted)         1.97 [+ or -] 0.20    1.69 [+ or -] 0.24
Proteinuria (%)                     0(0)             26 (55) n = 47
eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73               0 (0)            31 (66) n = 47
  [m.sup.2] (%)
Chronic Kidney Disease (%)          0 (0)            38 (79) n = 48
Dose of Contrast Medium             120 *          107.2 [+ or -] 38.7
  (mL) **

Table 2: Univariate analysis of predictive and confounding factors
for successful reduction of blood pressure. Successful reduction of
BP was defined as reduction in mean BP of 5 mmHg or more, or
reduction of antihypertensive dose. * Logistic regression analysis,
other parameters were analyzed with the chi-square test. ([dagger])
Plasma renin activity and eGFR were analyzed after log conversion. BP:
blood pressure; BMI: body mass index; IGT: impaired glucose
tolerance; DM: diabetes mellitus; eGFR: estimated glomerular
filtration rate.

                                     Number   Odds ratio   p value

Age (years) *                          48        5.14       0.25
Sex (female)                           48        1.33       0.70
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2]) *                   48        4.61       0.37
IGT or DM                              47        0.23       0.09
Dyslipidemia                           47        0.59       0.45
Bilateral renal artery stenosis        48        1.08       0.91
Resistive index *                      38        0.51       0.30
Plasma renin activity * ([dagger])     48        0.22       0.29
Mean BP (mmHg) *                       47        0.04       0.16
eGFR * ([dagger])                      45        0.20       0.24

Table 3: Univariate analysis of predictive and confounding factors
for regression of eGFR. A: all subjects; B: atherosclerotic RAS
only; BP: blood pressure; BMI: body mass index; IGT: impaired
glucose tolerance; DM: diabetes mellitus; RI: resistive index;
eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate. Regression of eGFR was
calculated as log(eGFR y1)--log(eGFR y0). * Linear regression
analysis, other parameters were analyzed with the unpaired t-test.
# Plasma renin activity and eGFR were analyzed after log


                        Number     Mean [+ or -] SD

Age (years) *             44
Sex                       44             male
                                 -0.013 [+ or -] 0.118
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2]) *      44
IGT or DM                 43          Normal GT
                                  0.01 [+ or -] 0.02
Dyslipidemia              43        Dyslipidemia--
                                  0.06 [+ or -] 0.03
Bilateral renal           44          Unilateral
artery stenosis                   -0.02 [+ or -] 0.03
Baseline RI *             35
Plasma renin              44
 activity * #
Mean blood                44
 pressure (mmHg) *
eGFR *#                   44
Dose of contrast          47
 medium (mL)

                                                Gradient   [R.sup.2]

Age (years) *                                     0.00       0.02
Sex                            female
                        -0.058 [+ or -] 0.170
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2]) *                              0.01       0.23
IGT or DM                    IGT or DM
                         -0.07 [+ or -] 0.03
Dyslipidemia               Dyslipidemia +
                           0 [+ or -] 0.03
Bilateral renal               Bilateral
artery stenosis          -0.03 [+ or -] 0.03
Baseline RI *                                    -0.50       0.19
Plasma renin                                      0.07       0.05
 activity * #
Mean blood                                        0.00       0.07
 pressure (mmHg) *
eGFR *#                                          -0.08       0.02
Dose of contrast                                  0.00       0.01
 medium (mL)

                        p value

Age (years) *            0.40
Sex                      0.32

BMI (kg/[m.sup.2]) *     0.32
IGT or DM                0.05

Dyslipidemia             0.15

Bilateral renal          0.66
artery stenosis
Baseline RI *            <0.05
Plasma renin             0.14
 activity * #
Mean blood               0.09
 pressure (mmHg) *
eGFR *#                  0.34
Dose of contrast         0.55
 medium (mL)


                        Number     Mean [+ or -] SD

Age (years) *             37
Sex                       37             male
                                 -0.016 [+ or -] 0.123
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2]) *      37
IGT or DM                 36           Normal GT
                                  0.02 [+ or -] 0.13
Dyslipidemia              36        Dyslipidemia--
                                  0.08 [+ or -] 0.04
Bilateral renal           37          Unilateral
artery stenosis                   -0.02 [+ or -] 0.02
Baseline RI *             30
Plasma renin activity     37
Mean BP (mmHg) *          34
eGFR * #                  37
Dose of contrast          35
 medium (mL)

                                                Gradient   [R.sup.2]

Age (years) *                                     0.00       0.00
Sex                            female
                        -0.081 [+ or -] 0.204
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2]) *                              0.01       0.01
IGT or DM                     IGT or DM
                         -0.07 [+ or -] 0.15
Dyslipidemia               Dyslipidemia +
                         0.00 [+ or -] 0.02
Bilateral renal               Bilateral
artery stenosis          -0.03 [+ or -] 0.01
Baseline RI *                                    -0.66       0.23
Plasma renin activity                             0.07       0.03
Mean BP (mmHg) *                                  0.00       0.05
eGFR * #                                         -0.17       0.03
Dose of contrast                                  0.00       0.01
 medium (mL)

                        p value

Age (years) *            0.32
Sex                      0.13

BMI (kg/[m.sup.2]) *     0.27
IGT or DM                <0.05

Dyslipidemia             0.05

Bilateral renal          0.35
artery stenosis
Baseline RI *            <0.05
Plasma renin activity    0.16
Mean BP (mmHg) *         0.10
eGFR * #                 0.14
Dose of contrast         0.52
 medium (mL)

Table 4: Multivariate linear regression analysis of predictive and
confounding factors for regression of eGFR. A: all subjects (n =
35); B: atherosclerotic RAS only (n = 30); BMI: body mass index;
RI: resistive index; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate.
eGFR was analyzed after log conversion. Regression of eGFR was
calculated as log(eGFR y1)--log(eGFR y0). (a)

                          Parameter estimate   t value   p value

Age (years)                      0.00           0.52      0.61
Sex (female)                     0.05           2.18      <0.05
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2])               0.01           1.81      0.08
Baseline RI                      0.72           -3.12     <0.05
Dose of contrast medium          0.00           -1.11     0.28


                          Parameter estimate   t value   P value

Age (years)                      0.00           -0.13     0.90
Sex (female)                     0.05           1.73      0.10
BMI (kg/[m.sup.2])               0.01           1.73      0.09
Baseline RI                      0.69           -2.65     <0.05
Dose of contrast medium          0.00           -1.18     0.25
COPYRIGHT 2018 COPYRIGHT 2010 SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Matayoshi, Tetsutaro; Kamide, Kei; Tanaka, Ryoichi; Fukuda, Tetsuya; Horio, Takeshi; Iwashima, Yoshi
Publication:International Journal of Hypertension
Geographic Code:9JAPA
Date:Jan 1, 2018
Previous Article:Association between CD4 Cell Count and Blood Pressure and Its Variation with Body Mass Index Categories in HIV-Infected Patients.
Next Article:Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Angolan Adults: A Descriptive Analysis from CardioBengo, a Community-Based Survey.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters