Clinical Features of Renal Artery Stenosis in Elderly Patients.
Tang Ri-ning,Liu Bi-cheng,Ren Li-qun,Wang Yan-li,Ma Gen-shan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00029330-200702020-00018
2007-01-01
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.