Abstract:Together with an increasingly aging world population there is also an increasing prevalence of atherosclerosis. Renal artery stenosis (RAS) is one of the systemic manifestations of atherosclerosis. Its incidence is about 15%-35%.1 RAS accounts for 5%-27% of all patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).2 Patients with renal dysfunction resulting from RAS are at risk of death from cardiovascular disease and ESRD.3 The prevalence of RAS is rising, owing to an increasing incidence of diabetes and atherosclerotic disease among our aging population. This increasing prevalence of RAS poses major challenges for clinicians when making diagnostic and treatment decisions. We reviewed the results of all coronary and renal angiography tests performed at our institution during the past 48 months and studied the clinical features of RAS in 42 elderly patients thereby to much improve the detection rate of RAS by renal angiography. CLINICAL DATA Patients During January 2001 to January 2005, 205 patients who were suspected of suffering from coronary artery stenosis and/or refractory hypertension underwent selective renal angiography at this hospital. A catheter was guided to cannulate the renal artery and positioned by the vertebrae. RAS and coronary artery disease (CAD) were defined as narrowing of the appropriate lumen of ≥ 50%. All patients agreed to take part in our clinical trails and signed the written informed contents, and 42 (20.5%) were identified with RAS. Among them, 34 patients (34/42, 81.0%) presented with unilateral RAS and 8 (8/42, 19.0%) with bilateral RAS, including 2 cases of unilateral renal artery occlusion. The following clinical parameters were recorded: hyperlipidaemia (serum cholesterol > 5.72 mmol/L and/or serum triglyceride >1.71 mmol/L), serum creatinine concentration (>132 μmol/L at least twice), refractory hypertension (as defined by blood pressure that is difficult to control with three or more antihypertension medicines, including calcium channel blocker: accounted for 89%, amlodipine 10 mg/d or nifedipine 60 mg/d; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: 80%, fosinopril or benazepril 10-20 mg/d; β-receptor blocker: 45%, metoprolol 50 mg/d; and α-receptor blocker: 35%, terazosin or prazosin 2-4 mg/d; angiotensin II receptor blocker: 20%, losartan 50-100 mg/d; diuretics: 20%, indapamide 2.5 mg/d. The average number of antihypertensives administered was 3.3 and the average blood pressure was 185/95 mmHg), and the discrepancy in the bipolar length of the two kidneys on ultrasound scan (a significant discrepancy was defined as a difference of >1.5 cm).4 We were also looking for other evidences, such as comorbid vascular disease with a history of CAD, cerebrovascular disease (CVD), and/or the presence of vessel bruits (at any renal, aortic or femoral location). Almost all patients had hypertension and half one or more of abrupt onset of hypertension, refractory hypertension and angina pectoris. One quarter patients had three coronary lesions and one quarter left ventricular hypertrophy, but only one fifth renal dimensions asymmetry (Table 1).Table 1: Clinical features of the 42 elderly patients with RASStatistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 11.5. Data were expressed as percentage (mean ± standard deviation (SD)). Significant differences in parameter distribution between patients with and without RAS were tested by χ2 test. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ2 test to determine which variables were related to RAS. A multivariate Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether such variables were independently significant and to determine whether a combination of variables might serve jointly as a significant set of predictors of unsuspected RAS. P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Risk factors By univariate analysis of the data, hypertension, CAD, renal insufficiency, hyperlipidaemia and hypokalemia were significantly associated with a higher risk of RAS. Age, CAD, hypertension, vessel bruits and hyperlipidaemia were the most important predictors of RAS. The relative risk (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 1.198 (1.001-1.583, P<0.05), 4.771 (1.137-8.706, P<0.05), 15.350 (5.102-61.279, P<0.001), 7.821 (3.907-13.564, P<0.01) and 5.437 (2.819-12.722, P<0.05), respectively. Relationship between RAS and CAD The incidence of CAD in patients identified by renal artery angiography was 57.1% (24/42), while 64 CAD with normal renal arteries (41.8%, 64/153, P<0.05). Moreover, RAS patients may be more likely to have two or three branch lesions of the coronary artery compared to normal renal artery patients (19.0% vs 6.5%, 26.2% vs 9.8%, P<0.01). The incidence of significant RAS was 27.3% in patients with CAD, while 15.4% in patients without CAD (P<0.01). RAS and hypertension In the RAS group, there were 38 patients with hypertension including 18 with refractory hypertension. Moreover, 6 of the 8 patients with bilateral RAS presented with severe hypertension (> 190/100 mmHg). Furthermore, 9 RAS patients with hypokalemia also had higher hypertension (mean 209/106 mmHg). Sixty-five patients had refractory hypertension in the RAS and non-RAS group. Patients with refractory hypertension had a specificity of 71.2%, a negative predictive value of 82.0%, and a sensitivity of 42.0% in the RAS group. In the patients with hypertension, the blood pressure was effectively controlled among 75% patients. RAS and renal insufficiency We have followed up the RAS patients who received only medicines (the patients with bilateral RAS without taking angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin I receptor blockers) to control their hypertension, blood glucose or angina pectoris for 3 years. Serum creatinine value was higher in the RAS group than that in the non-RAS group ((154 ± 112) μmol/L vs (91 ± 26) μmol/L, P<0.05). The incidence of renal insufficiency was 28.6% (12/42) in patients with RAS, and 5.9% (9/153) in patients without RAS (P<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean change of serum creatinine concentration per year in patients with and without RAS. Grouping patients by their maximum percentage stenosis did not reveal any differences in the mean change of serum creatinine concentration per year ((8.3±19.2) μmol/L in the RAS group vs (7.3±19.4) μmol/L in the non-RAS group, P>0.05). Predictive parameters of RAS Four major manifestations of RAS were selected (CAD, vessel bruits, renal dimensions asymmetry, and refractory hypertension) to specifically analyze the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and also the negative predictive value (Table 2). As a result of this analysis we discovered that patients suffering from the three conditions (CAD, vessel bruits, and refractory hypertension) had higher sensitivity of 60.3%, higher negative predictive value of 90.0%, and higher positive predictive value of 91.7% compared to the other patients.Table 2: The predictive parameters to diagnose RAS according to the major manifestations (%)DISCUSSION Recently, more attention has been paid to screening for RAS or ischaemic nephropathy in aging patients. Due to its lack of clearly defined manifestations, it is not easy to make a clinical diagnosis of RAS without renal angiography.5 Fortunately, several studies have documented the frequent coexistence of RAS and other atherosclerotic diseases, especially CAD and peripheral vascular disease. Buller et al6 reported that RAS was associated with hypertension and peripheral or carotid artery disease. Shurrab et al4 reported a history of coexistent extrarenal vascular disease, the presence of vascular bruits and a significant disparity in bipolar renal length measured on ultrasound were the features of RAS. Several authors found there was a higher incidence of RAS in CAD patients.1,6 Svetky et al found the presence of bruits was a strong predictor of RAS. Our study shows that there is a significant difference between the RAS and the non-RAS group for CAD, vessel bruits, significant disparity of bipolar renal length (> 1.5 cm), and refractory hypertension. Therefore, we chose these four major manifestations (CAD, vessel bruits, renal length asymmetry and refractory hypertension) as the criteria and analyzed their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. We found that those patients with the CAD, vessel bruits, and refractory hypertension had a higher sensitivity of 60.3%, a higher negative predictive value of 90.0% and a higher positive predictive value of 91.7% compared to any other combination. One reason for this was the presence of ultrasound discrepancy in the length of the two kidneys (> 1.5 cm) indicating the late stages of RAS.7 Therefore, we recommend that patients with CAD, vessel bruits, and refractory hypertension should undergo renal angiography to improve the early detection of RAS. Several research groups have reported that patients undergoing haemodialysis have a higher incidence of RAS than those without haemodialysis. Furthermore, renal revascularization procedures and treatments have been effective for patients, reversing the deterioration in renal function and allowing a successful discontinuation of dialysis.8 However, studies about RAS in patients with end-stage renal disease do not prove a causal relationship, as severe RAS may occur in the absence of renal dysfunction and patients with RAS may have other causes for renal failure.9 Cheung et al10 thought that the renal functional deterioration might be mainly attributed to renal parenchymal damage and the prognosis of RAS was less correlated with the severity of RAS. In the current study, we found that there was little deterioration of renal function per year in patients with RAS (50%-69% vs > 70%) during an average of 4-year follow-up. The poor correlation existing between the extent of RAS and degree of renal insufficiency has been reported previously.11 Also, grouping our patients by the percentage of stenosis did not reveal any difference in the mean changes in serum creatinine concentration per year. The limitation of this study is that we did not evaluate renal function by glomerular filtration rate. Obviously, it is necessary to further clarify the relationship between the percentage of stenosis and glomerular filtration rate for the limited samples in the patients with atherosclerotic RAS in the future study. In conclusion, our study suggests that the three conditions of CAD, vessel bruits, and refractory hypertension might be useful for diagnosing RAS.

Abstract:The highly diagnostic performance of renal transstenotic pressure gradients (TSPG) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been well validated for assessment of the hemodynamic renal artery stenosis (RAS).1-4 Accordingly, an expert consensus panel of the American Heart Association recommended that a peak systolic gradient of at least 20 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa), or a mean pressure gradient of 10 mmHg, be used to identify candidate lesions for revascularization in symptomatic patients with RAS.5 A large number of multicenter clinical trials suggested that renal pressure gradient demonstrated several convincing characteristics in the evaluation of stenosis severity.5,6 In a study carried by Leesar et al,7 62 patients with RAS were recruited to investigate the comparative accuracy of renal resting and hyperemic TSPG, FFR, intravascular ultrasound and angiographic parameters in predicting hypertension improvement after stenting of RAS. From the results, the hyperemic TSPG had a larger area under the curve than most other parameters and a hyperemic TSPG ≥21 mmHg had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (82%, 84%, and 84%, respectively). The average intravascular ultrasound area stenosis was markedly greater in RAS with a hyperemic TSPG ≥21 mmHg. After stenting for 12 months, hypertension improved in 84% patients with an hyperemic TSPG ≥21 mmHg versus 36% patients with a hyperemic TSPG <21 mmHg (P <0.01). The number of antihypertensive medications was also significantly lower in patients with an hyperemic TSPG ≥21 mmHg that was the only independent predictor of hypertension improvement by multivariable analysis.7 According to a study conducted by Jones et al,8 22 patients with uncontrolled hypertension were enrolled and underwent hemodynamic assessment of resting and hyperemic TSPG because of intermediate RAS (angiographic diameter stenosis 30%-75%). However, visual and measured angiographic lesion severity did not correlate with TSPG either at baseline or with hyperemia. Subsequently, 13 (60%) patients underwent renal artery stenting for hemodynamic significant RAS (hyperemic TSPG >20 mmHg). At follow-up at least 30 days, there was a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure ((167±24) vs. (134±19) mmHg, P <0.001). They concluded that TSPG measurement might be warranted for the intermediate RAS rather than relying on stenosis severity alone.8 Moreover, Mangiacapra et al9 recruited 53 consecutive hypertensive patients with unilateral RAS scheduled for renal artery intervention. TSPG were measured at baseline and dopamine-induced hyperemia before renal stenting. After the stent for 3 months follow-up, average reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were (−20±30) mmHg and (−2±12) mmHg, respectively. By multivariate analysis, hyperemia TSPG was the only independent predictor of the variations of blood pressure. Besides, patients were considered as “responders” who showed a decline more than 20 mmHg in systolic blood pressure (area under the curve=0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.90; P=0.001). They concluded that TSPG ≥20 mmHg is highly predictive of arterial hypertension improvement after renal stenting and useful for appropriate selection of patients who might benefit from stenting.9,10 However, the measurement of renal TSPG and FFR are limited by the invasiveness and high cost, thus, a noninvasive technique of renal TSPG and FFR are urgently needed as alternative diagnostic tools. An interesting paper by Bley et al2 assessed RAS with a novel technology of noninvasive assessment of TSPG in porcine model. It was presented that the noninvasive TSPG measurements derived from high-spatial- and temporal-resolution four-dimensional magnetic resonance (MR) flow measurements was feasible and accurate in assessing hemodynamic significance in a porcine model of RAS.2 The technique is definitely a significant advance in evaluating the severity of RAS and might have the potential to become a practical tool in clinical laboratory. TSPG is a practical tool to evaluate the stenosis severity of RAS. To date, the invasive measurements of TSPG require an arterial puncture and catheterization with the associated risks and radiation exposure. Thus, a novel MR angiographic technique with respiratory-gated phase-contrast vastly undersampled isotropic projection (VIPR) was developed to assess TSPG, but was limited by respiratory motion.3 By combining retrospective electrocardiographic gating, adaptive respiratory gating, and other correction schemes, phase-contrast VIPR of the renal arteries has addressed the shortcoming.2 It was displayed that TSPG could be measured noninvasively to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of mild to moderate renal stenosis by using an unenhanced MR angiographic technique, phase-contrast VIPR, with respiratory gating. However, the study was only investigated in twelve porcine. Thus, the small sample size may reduce the reliability and accuracy of the results. Moreover, bilateral RAS model of porcine was created surgically, which was of significant difference from patients with atherosclerotic RAS in pathological changes. Specially, the elasticity of arterial wall in lesion-specific condition may greatly influence the invasive measurement of TSPG. Finally, despite little difference between the pressures measured with the pressure-sensing guidewires and derived from phase-contrast VIPR, the MR-based measurements tend to underestimate TSPG and no definite threshold of noninvasive TSPG was validated to define lesion as functional significant or indications for revascularization. Therefore, clinical trials with a large size of patients with RAS as investigation samples over porcine models are needed to evaluate the accuracy of this new technique before its use from bench to bedside. Although this novel technique is available to overcome the risk of invasive measurement, TSPG, as a highly systemic pressure-dependent index to evaluate the stenosis severity, has its own limitations. First, it can be affected by multiple factors, including systemic circulation and the state of renal blood flow and renal microvasculature.4 Second, a rather modest pressure gradient across a renal artery (10% of aortic pressure) could be found hemodynamic significance with increase of renin production.1 Third, the criteria of TSPG to define a significant RAS and to guide intervention are vague. Guidelines from American Heart Association recommended a translesional peak systolic pressure gradient of >20 mmHg or 10 mmHg mean difference as indications for revascularization in moderate lesions (≥50% and ≤80%) but they added that it had not been validated with regard to clinical outcomes.5 Another consensus from the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee recommended using a peak systolic pressure gradient of >10% or a mean pressure gradient of >5% for those 50%-75% narrowed stenosis but still obscure enough with a definite renal hemodynamic criteria or practical measurement criteria.6 To overcome these arbitrary presumptions, renal FFR, calculated exactly like coronary FFR, was developed to evaluate the severity of RAS. The first published study focusing on renal FFR as a dynamic assessment of the stenosis significance under hyperemic conditions is safe and feasible.4 It indicated that renal FFR was a promising tool to evaluate moderate RAS with an excellent correlation between renal FFR and the hyperemic mean TSPG (r= −0.94; P <0.0001) and the resting mean translesional pressure gradient (r=−0.76; P=0.0016).4 In a study by Mitchell et al,11 renal FFR was measured after renal stent in 17 patients with refractory hypertension and moderate to severe unilateral RAS. Of all, 10 patients had normal baseline renal FFR (≥0.80) and 7 patients with an abnormal (<0.80). At 3 months after intervention, 86% of patients with an abnormal renal FFR experienced improvement in their blood pressure, compared with only 30% of those with normal renal FFR (P=0.04). However, neither systolic, mean, or hyperemic TSPG, nor the severity of angiographic stenosis, were predictive of blood pressure improvement.11 Recently, Kadziela et al12 investigated the resting TSPG, resting the ratio of mean distal to lesion and mean proximal pressures (Pd/Pa ratio) and renal FFR in relation to angiography and Doppler ultrasonography in 44 hypertensive patients with at least intermediate RAS. Mean Pd/Pa ratio was 0.86±0.12 and decreased to 0.79±0.13 after papaverine administration. Both Pd/Pa ratio and renal FFR strongly correlated with TSPG, moderately with angiographic data (minimal lumen diameter, percent diameter stenosis) and less pronounced manner with ultrasound parameters (renal/aortic ratio, resistive index). They finally suggested that the best accuracy cut-off points were 0.93 for Pd/Pa ratio and 0.80 for renal FFR for predicting severe RAS.12 As a pressure-derived index, the advantages of FFR are as follows. First, it is lesion-specific and provides a measure of the reduction in renal blood flow caused by the stenosis.4 Second, it takes into account collateral flow, which can render an anatomical blockage without functionally significance. Third, it has a definite threshold to define hemodynamic significance (<0.80). Finally, a morphological severe stenosis might not induce a significant TSPG if the artery has slow flow due to renal parenchymal impairment, which, in contrast, adds to the feasibility of assessing the severity of RAS diagnosed by renal FFR. The technique of three dimensional model reconstructions was getting mature with the development of computer vision and graphics, which enable the noninvasive measurement of FFR. Furthermore, unlike the invasive and costly procedure,13 noninvasive FFR is simple, practical and more acceptable by patients. A recent study has determined the diagnostic performance of a new method for quantifying coronary FFR with computational fluid dynamics applied to coronary CT angiography data in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (per-vessel accuracy 84.3%, sensitivity 87.9%, specificity 82.2%, positive predictive value 73.9%, and negative predictive value 92.2%).14 Further well-conducted multicenter study demonstrated that noninvasive FFR plus CT was associated with improved diagnostic accuracy and discrimination compared with coronary CT angiography alone (per-patient sensitivity 90%).15 These studies fully demonstrated that the noninvasive measurement of coronary FFR was a feasible and reliable technique with significant accuracy. Moreover, they recently suggested that the novel methods applied to CT angiography data is also applicable to other common cardiovascular conditions including renovascular disease, and may be used to determine whether vascular stenoses are significant.16 In summary, we believe that computational fluid dynamics based noninvasive assessment of renal FFR may be a potential diagnostic tool for the lesion-specific ischemia and hemodynamic significant RAS. Importantly, the novel method may also enable prediction of renal flow changes and make clinical decisions of the relative benefit of renal artery therapeutic intervention.

Chronic total occlusion of renal artery in symptomatic young patient with resistant hypertension: is a revascularization necessary or redundant?

Predictors of Renal Artery Stenosis in Patients with Normal Renal Function Undergoing Coronary Angiography.

Acute Renal Infarction Due to Symptomatic Isolated Spontaneous Renal Artery Dissection: A Rare and Fatal Disease.

Clinical Features of Renal Artery Stenosis in Elderly Patients.

When Revascularization May Be Appropriate in Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis

Proximal Renal Artery Stenosis Presenting as Uncontrolled Hypertension

Angiographic Characteristics of Renal Arterial Disease over the Spectrum of Coronary Artery Disease

When and How Should We Revascularize Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis?

Renal Artery Stenosis: Current Perspectives On Imaging And Endovascular Management

Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis--diagnosis and treatment

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Renal Artery Stenosis in Patients Undergoing Simultaneous Coronary and Renal Artery Angiography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 31,689 Patients from 31 Studies

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Renal Artery Stenosis in Patients with Refractory Hypertension

Determinant role of renal artery stenting in recovery from acute worsening of atherosclerotic renal failure

Renal artery occlusion in a young woman – a tale of mysterious thrombosis

Noninvasive Assessment of Renal Fractional Flow Reserve: Are We There Yet?

Evaluation of noninvasive screening methods for renal artery stenosis

Treatment progress of ischemic renal disease

In High Risk Hypertensive Subjects with Incidental and Unilateral Renal Artery Stenosis Percutaneous Revascularization with Stent Improves Blood Pressure Control but Not Glomerular Filtration Rate

[Renal artery stenosis long time after renal denervation for resistant hypertension]

Renovascular Hypertension: to Stent or Not to Stent?

Endovascular Versus Medical Management of Atherosclerotic Renovascular Disease: Update and Emerging Concepts