Renal Artery Stent Outcomes: Effect of Baseline Blood Pressure, Stenosis Severity, and Translesion Pressure Gradient
Multiple randomized clinical trials comparing renal artery stent placement plus medical therapy with medical therapy alone have not shown any benefit of stent placement. However, debate continues whether patients with extreme pressure gradients, stenosis severity, or baseline blood pressure benefit from stent revascularization.
The study sought to test the hypothesis that pressure gradients, stenosis severity, and/or baseline blood pressure affects outcomes after renal artery stent placement.
Using data from 947 patients with a history of hypertension or chronic kidney disease from the largest randomized trial of renal artery stent placement, the CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) study, we performed exploratory analyses to determine if subsets of patients experienced better outcomes after stent placement than the overall cohort. We examined baseline stenosis severity, systolic blood pressure, and translesion pressure gradient (peak systolic and mean) and performed interaction tests and Cox proportional hazards analyses for the occurrence of the primary endpoint through all follow-up, to examine the effect of these variables on outcomes by treatment group.
There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes based on the examined variables nor were there any consistent nonsignificant trends.
Based on data from the CORAL randomized trial, there is no evidence of a significant treatment effect of the renal artery stent procedure compared with medical therapy alone based on stenosis severity, level of systolic blood pressure elevation, or according to the magnitude of the trans-stenotic pressure gradient. (Benefits of Medical Therapy Plus Stenting for Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions [CORAL]; NCT00081731)
Murphy TP, Cooper CJ, Matsumoto AH, et al. Renal artery stent outcomes: effect of baseline blood pressure, stenosis severity, and translesion pressure gradient. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2015;66(22):2487-94