Suppr超能文献

肾动脉狭窄的血运重建与药物治疗对比

Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis.

作者信息

Wheatley Keith, Ives Natalie, Gray Richard, Kalra Philip A, Moss Jonathan G, Baigent Colin, Carr Susan, Chalmers Nicholas, Eadington David, Hamilton George, Lipkin Graham, Nicholson Anthony, Scoble John

出版信息

N Engl J Med. 2009 Nov 12;361(20):1953-62. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905368.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous revascularization of the renal arteries improves patency in atherosclerotic renovascular disease, yet evidence of a clinical benefit is limited.

METHODS

In a randomized, unblinded trial, we assigned 806 patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease either to undergo revascularization in addition to receiving medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. The primary outcome was renal function, as measured by the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level (a measure that has a linear relationship with creatinine clearance). Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, the time to renal and major cardiovascular events, and mortality. The median follow-up was 34 months.

RESULTS

During a 5-year period, the rate of progression of renal impairment (as shown by the slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level) was -0.07x10(-3) liters per micromole per year in the revascularization group, as compared with -0.13x10(-3) liters per micromole per year in the medical-therapy group, a difference favoring revascularization of 0.06x10(-3) liters per micromole per year (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.002 to 0.13; P=0.06). Over the same time, the mean serum creatinine level was 1.6 micromol per liter (95% CI, -8.4 to 5.2 [0.02 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.06]) lower in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group. There was no significant between-group difference in systolic blood pressure; the decrease in diastolic blood pressure was smaller in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group. The two study groups had similar rates of renal events (hazard ratio in the revascularization group, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.40; P=0.88), major cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19; P=0.61), and death (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P=0.46). Serious complications associated with revascularization occurred in 23 patients, including 2 deaths and 3 amputations of toes or limbs.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial risks but no evidence of a worthwhile clinical benefit from revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN59586944.)

摘要

背景

肾动脉的经皮血管重建术可改善动脉粥样硬化性肾血管疾病的血管通畅性,但临床获益的证据有限。

方法

在一项随机、非盲试验中,我们将806例动脉粥样硬化性肾血管疾病患者分为两组,一组除接受药物治疗外还接受血管重建术,另一组仅接受药物治疗。主要结局是肾功能,通过血清肌酐水平的倒数来衡量(该指标与肌酐清除率呈线性关系)。次要结局包括血压、发生肾脏和主要心血管事件的时间以及死亡率。中位随访时间为34个月。

结果

在5年期间,血管重建术组肾功能损害进展率(以血清肌酐水平倒数的斜率表示)为每年-0.07×10⁻³升/微摩尔,药物治疗组为每年-0.13×10⁻³升/微摩尔,血管重建术组比药物治疗组每年改善0.06×10⁻³升/微摩尔(95%置信区间[CI],-0.002至0.13;P = 0.06)。在同一时期,血管重建术组的平均血清肌酐水平比药物治疗组低1.6微摩尔/升(95% CI,-8.4至5.2[0.02毫克/分升;95% CI,-0.10至0.06])。收缩压在两组之间无显著差异;血管重建术组舒张压的下降幅度小于药物治疗组。两组的肾脏事件发生率相似(血管重建术组的风险比为0.97;95% CI,0.67至1.40;P = 0.88),主要心血管事件发生率相似(风险比为0.94;95% CI,0.75至1.19;P = 0.61),死亡率也相似(风险比为0.90;95% CI,0.69至1.18;P = 0.46)。23例患者发生了与血管重建术相关的严重并发症,包括2例死亡和3例脚趾或肢体截肢。

结论

我们发现动脉粥样硬化性肾血管疾病患者进行血管重建术存在重大风险,但没有证据表明其具有值得的临床获益。(当前对照试验编号,ISRCTN59586944。)

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验