Meta-analysis of revascularization versus medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis.

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of revascularization versus medical therapy in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS). ARAS is the most common cause of secondary hypertension and is associated with several complications, such as renal failure, coronary artery disease, cardiac destabilization, and stroke. Medical therapy is the cornerstone for management of ARAS; however, numerous trials have compared medical therapy with revascularization in the form of percutaneous renal artery angioplasty (PTRA) or percutaneous renal artery angioplasty with stent placement (PTRAS). Medline (PubMed and Ovid SP), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Review (CDSR) were searched till present (November 2013) to identify clinical trials where medical therapy was compared with revascularization (PTRA or PTRAS). We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model. The heterogeneity was assessed using I2 values. The initial database search identified 540 studies and 7 randomized controlled trials, and 2,139 patients were included in the final analysis. Angioplasty with or without stenting was not superior to medical therapy with respect to any outcome. The incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarction was 6.74% in both the stenting and medical therapy group (odds ratio=0.998, 95% confidence interval 0.698 to 1.427, p=0.992), and incidence of renal events in stenting population was found to be 19.58% versus 20.53% in medical therapy (odds ratio=0.945, 95% confidence interval 0.755 to 1.182, p=0.620). In conclusion, PTRA or PTRAS does not improve outcomes compared with medical therapy in patients with ARAS. Future studies should investigate to identify patient subgroups that may benefit from such an intervention.