4.7 Article

Revascularization for Renovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Journal

HYPERTENSION
Volume 79, Issue 8, Pages E128-E143

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000217

Keywords

AHA Scientific Statements; heart failure; hypertension; renovascular; renal artery obstruction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Renal revascularization has shown limited effectiveness compared to medical therapy in treating renal ischemic disease, leading to decreased utilization in clinical practice. The need for further research to identify specific populations that may benefit from revascularization is highlighted in this scientific statement.
Renovascular disease is a major causal factor for secondary hypertension and renal ischemic disease. However, several prospective, randomized trials for atherosclerotic disease failed to demonstrate that renal revascularization is more effective than medical therapy for most patients. These results have greatly reduced the generalized diagnostic workup and use of renal revascularization. Most guidelines and review articles emphasize the limited average improvement and fail to identify those clinical populations that do benefit from revascularization. On the basis of the clinical experience of hypertension centers, specialists have continued selective revascularization, albeit without a summary statement by a major, multidisciplinary, national organization that identifies specific populations that may benefit. In this scientific statement for health care professionals and the public-at-large, we review the strengths and weaknesses of randomized trials in revascularization and highlight (1) when referral for consideration of diagnostic workup and therapy may be warranted, (2) the evidence/rationale for these selective scenarios, (3) interventional and surgical techniques for effective revascularization, and (4) areas of research with unmet need.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available