Outcomes of endoluminal reintervention for restenosis after percutaneous renal angioplasty and stenting

Mark G. Davies, Wael A. Saad, Jean X. Bismuth, Eric K. Peden, Joseph J. Naoum, Alan B. Lumsden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Endovascular therapy for symptomatic atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) is common but is associated with a significant restenosis rate. This study evaluates the outcomes of percutaneous endoluminal therapy for symptomatic restenosis (>50% on angiography) after renal intervention. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of records from patients who underwent endovascular intervention for ARAS and were followed by duplex ultrasound scan between January 1990 and January 2008. Clinical benefit defined as freedom from recurrent hypertension or renal-related morbidity (increase in persistent creatinine >20% of baseline, progression to hemodialysis, death from renal-related causes), anatomic patency, restenosis, and patient survival were measured. Results: A total of 447 patients underwent 619 renal artery interventions. A total of 80 vessels restenosed with an actuarial restenosis rate of 19% at 5 years. Of these restenoses, 65 (81%) were associated with recurrent symptoms (recurrent hypertension 84%, or continuing deterioration in renal function 16%). Fifty-five (85%) underwent repeat angioplasty and 10 underwent bypass surgery. The remainder was observed. The 55 percutaneous interventions were performed in 51 patients (61% female, average age 62 years, range, 51-85). A total of 73% had metabolic syndrome, 58% had hyperlipidemia, and 51% were considered diabetic; all of them had primary stenting during their first procedure. There was a 4% technical failure rate in both groups. In the restenosis group, the presence of stent was associated with a 9% technical failure rate, while in the absence of a stent the technical failure rate was only 3% (P < .05). At 5 years, outcomes were equivalent between the primary and recurrent groups for survival (76 ± 2% vs 75 ± 8%, primary vs recurrent), cumulative patency (82 ± 3% vs 70 ± 10%), freedom from restenosis (81 ± 3% vs 81 ± 9%), and retained clinical benefit (44 ± 4% vs 46 ± 10%). By Cox proportional hazards and multivariate analysis, administration of statins were associated with freedom from restenosis in the recurrent lesions. Statins, contralateral kidney size (>9 cm) and a ≥20% improvement in baseline creatinine with 3 months were associated with freedom from recurrent symptoms. Restenosis after therapy in recurrent lesions was significantly correlated with recurrent symptoms (Spearman r = 0.4614, P < .0004). Conclusion: Percutaneous reintervention for renal artery restenosis is safe and effective with equivalent outcomes to primary intervention. The patients are more likely to present with recurrent hypertension and be younger and of female gender than patients presenting for primary intervention. Functional outcomes after reintervention are equivalent to primary intervention.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)946-952
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Volume49
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2009

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes of endoluminal reintervention for restenosis after percutaneous renal angioplasty and stenting'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this