4.4 Article

Embolic Protection Devices in Patients with Renal Artery Stenosis with Chronic Renal Insufficiency: A Clinical Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages 1639-1645

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.08.002

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To present clinical outcomes with the use of embolic protection devices (EPDs) and renal artery stents in patients with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) and renal artery stenosis (RAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in 23 patients with RAS and CRI who were treated with renal artery stent placement with an EPD. Follow-up data were obtained. through medical records. RESULTS: In 23 patients (18 men; 78%) with an average age of 69.4 years +/- 11 (range, 46-86 y), 32 renal arteries were treated for worsening renal function (n = 17; 74%) or uncontrolled hypertension and worsening renal function (n = 6; 26%). Nine FilterWire EZ devices were used in eight patients (35%) and 17 SpideRX devices were used in 15 patients (65%). The average follow-up was 8 months +/- 5. After the stent procedure, the mean systolic blood pressure decreased significantly (P < .05) whereas the diastolic pressure remained unchanged. There was a significant increase in the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate from 32.9 mL/min +/- 12.9 at baseline to 41.3 mL/min +/- 13.7 at last follow-up (P < .05). In 96% of patients, there was improvement or stabilization of kidney function. In six of the 17 SpideRX devices (35%), macroscopically evident embolic material was observed in the device after stent placement. There were two minor and two major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Renal artery stent placement combined with the use of a SpideRX or FilterWire EZ device is associated with an good clinical outcome with a reasonable safety profile.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available