4.3 Article

Long-term outcome of transplant renal artery stenosis managed conservatively or by radiological intervention

Journal

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 572-578

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2008.00826.x

Keywords

angioplasty; blood pressure; glomerular filtration rate; kidney transplant; renal artery stenosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The natural history and optimal treatment of transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS) is poorly defined. Few studies reported long-term clinical outcomes. A single centre analysis of 43 patients diagnosed with TRAS 1990-2003 was performed. Twenty-seven had percutaneous intervention (including 10 patients who had > 1 intervention) and 16 were managed conservatively at the discretion of the attending clinicians. Transplant function was assessed by slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over five yr of follow-up. Patients in the intervention group had lower mean eGFR (36.3 mL/min/1.73 m(2) vs. 46.3 mL/min/1.73 m(2); p = 0.07) at baseline. Five transplants in the intervention group failed (including two as a direct result of intervention) and one in the conservative group failed. There was no significant difference in the rate of deterioration in renal function (mean slope of eGFR minus 0.8 mL/min/yr and minus 1.0 mL/min/yr in the intervention and conservative groups, respectively; p = 0.79). There was no significant difference in blood pressure or number of anti-hypertensive agents between the groups at any time point. Baseline Doppler ultrasound indices showed no significant correlation with slope of eGFR in either group. Our data demonstrate that selected patients with TRAS can be managed without intervention and that this approach is associated with good long-term outcome. Selection of appropriate patients for intervention remains difficult and larger randomized studies are required.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available