Losito Attilio, Errico Rosa, Santirosi Paola, Lupattelli Tommaso, Scalera Giovanni Battista, Lupattelli Luciano
Unità Operativa Nefrologia e Dialisi, Policlinico Monteluce, Università di Perugia, Italy.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005 Aug;20(8):1604-9. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfh865. Epub 2005 May 3.
Patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease (ARVD) are almost invariably treated by revascularization. However, the long-term outcomes of this approach on survival and progression to renal failure have not been investigated and have not been compared with that of a purely medical treatment. The aim of this observational study was to investigate factors affecting long-term (over 5 years) outcome, survival and renal function of patients with ARVD treated invasively or medically.
ARVD was demonstrated angiographically in 195 patients who were consecutively enrolled into a follow-up study. Patient age was 65.6+/-11.2 years, serum creatinine was 1.74+/-1.22 mg/dl and renal artery lumen narrowing was 73.5+/-17.5%. A revascularization was performed in 136 patients, whereas 54 subjects having comparable characteristics were maintained on a medical treatment throughout the study; five patients were lost during follow-up.
The main follow-up was 54.4+/-40.4 months. The assessment of cardiovascular survival and renal survival at the end of follow-up revealed 46 cardiovascular deaths, 20 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and 41 patients with an increase in serum creatinine of over one-third. The multivariate analysis showed that renal revascularization did not affect mortality or renal survival compared with medical treatment. Revascularization produced slightly lower increases in serum creatinine and a better control of blood pressure. A longer survival was associated with the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (P = 0.002) in both revascularized and medically treated patients. The only significant predictor of ESRD was an abnormal baseline serum creatinine.
On long-term follow-up, ARVD was associated with a poor prognosis due to a high cardiovascular mortality and a high rate of ESRD. In our non-randomized study, revascularization was not a major advantage over medical treatment in terms of mortality or renal survival. The use of ACEIs was associated with improved survival.
动脉粥样硬化性肾血管疾病(ARVD)患者几乎都接受血管重建治疗。然而,这种治疗方法对生存及进展至肾衰竭的长期疗效尚未得到研究,也未与单纯药物治疗进行比较。这项观察性研究的目的是调查侵袭性治疗或药物治疗的ARVD患者长期(超过5年)预后、生存及肾功能的影响因素。
195例经血管造影证实为ARVD的患者连续纳入一项随访研究。患者年龄为65.6±11.2岁,血清肌酐为1.74±1.22mg/dl,肾动脉管腔狭窄为73.5±17.5%。136例患者接受了血管重建治疗,而54例具有相似特征的受试者在整个研究期间接受药物治疗;5例患者在随访期间失访。
主要随访时间为54.4±40.4个月。随访结束时的心血管生存和肾脏生存评估显示,有46例心血管死亡,20例终末期肾病(ESRD)患者,41例血清肌酐升高超过三分之一的患者。多变量分析显示,与药物治疗相比,肾血管重建术不影响死亡率或肾脏生存。血管重建术后血清肌酐升高幅度略低,血压控制更好。血管重建治疗和药物治疗患者使用血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEIs)均与更长的生存期相关(P = 0.002)。ESRD的唯一显著预测因素是基线血清肌酐异常。
长期随访显示,由于心血管死亡率高和ESRD发生率高,ARVD预后较差。在我们的非随机研究中,血管重建术在死亡率或肾脏生存方面并非比药物治疗有主要优势。使用ACEIs与生存期改善相关。