OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to determine the blood pressure (BP) response to renal artery stenting (RAS) for patients with hypertension urgency, hypertension emergency, and angina with congestive heart failure (angina/congestive heart failure [CHF]). METHODS: Patients who underwent RAS for hypertension emergencies (n = 13), hypertension urgencies (n = 25), and angina/CHF (n = 14) were included in the analysis. By convention, hypertension urgency was defined by a sustained systolic BP ≥ 180 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 120 mm Hg, while the definition of hypertension emergency required the same BP parameters plus hypertension-related symptoms prompting hospitalization. Patient-specific response to RAS was defined according to modified American Heart Association reporting guidelines. RESULTS: The study cohort of 52 patients had a median age of 66 years (interquartile range 58-72). The BP response to RAS varied significantly according to the indication for RAS. Hypertension emergency provided the highest BP response rate (85%), while the response rate was significantly lower for hypertension urgency (52%) and angina/CHF (7%; P = .03). Only 1 of 14 patients with angina/CHF was a BP responder. Multivariate analysis showed that hypertension urgency or emergency were not independent predictors of BP response to RAS. Instead, the only independent predictor of a favorable BP response was the number of preoperative antihypertensive medications (odds ratio 7.5; 95% confidence interval 2.5-22.9; P = .0004), which is another indicator of the severity of hypertension. Angina/CHF was an independent predictor of failure to respond to RAS (odds ratio 118.6; 95% confidence interval 2.8-999.9; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension urgency and emergency are clinical manifestations of severe hypertension, but the number of preoperative antihypertensive medications proved to be a better predictor of a favorable BP response to RAS. In contrast, angina/CHF was a predictor of failure to respond to stenting, providing further evidence against the practice of incidental stenting during coronary interventions.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to determine the blood pressure (BP) response to renal artery stenting (RAS) for patients with hypertension urgency, hypertension emergency, and angina with congestive heart failure (angina/congestive heart failure [CHF]). METHODS:Patients who underwent RAS for hypertension emergencies (n = 13), hypertension urgencies (n = 25), and angina/CHF (n = 14) were included in the analysis. By convention, hypertension urgency was defined by a sustained systolic BP ≥ 180 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 120 mm Hg, while the definition of hypertension emergency required the same BP parameters plus hypertension-related symptoms prompting hospitalization. Patient-specific response to RAS was defined according to modified American Heart Association reporting guidelines. RESULTS: The study cohort of 52 patients had a median age of 66 years (interquartile range 58-72). The BP response to RAS varied significantly according to the indication for RAS. Hypertension emergency provided the highest BP response rate (85%), while the response rate was significantly lower for hypertension urgency (52%) and angina/CHF (7%; P = .03). Only 1 of 14 patients with angina/CHF was a BP responder. Multivariate analysis showed that hypertension urgency or emergency were not independent predictors of BP response to RAS. Instead, the only independent predictor of a favorable BP response was the number of preoperative antihypertensive medications (odds ratio 7.5; 95% confidence interval 2.5-22.9; P = .0004), which is another indicator of the severity of hypertension. Angina/CHF was an independent predictor of failure to respond to RAS (odds ratio 118.6; 95% confidence interval 2.8-999.9; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS:Hypertension urgency and emergency are clinical manifestations of severe hypertension, but the number of preoperative antihypertensive medications proved to be a better predictor of a favorable BP response to RAS. In contrast, angina/CHF was a predictor of failure to respond to stenting, providing further evidence against the practice of incidental stenting during coronary interventions.
Authors: Ananda T Dias; Bianca P Rodrigues; Marcella L Porto; Agata L Gava; Camille M Balarini; Flavia P S Freitas; Zaira Palomino; Dulce E Casarini; Bianca P Campagnaro; Thiago M C Pereira; Silvana S Meyrelles; Elisardo C Vasquez Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 5.531