Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis: Should we Intervene Earlier?

Purpose of Review

Randomized trials have failed to show clinical benefit in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis who were treated with angioplasty with or without stenting. However, these studies were done in patients with a high-grade stenosis. This paper examines whether there are arguments to consider patients with low-grade stenosis for angioplasty.

Recent Findings

Patients with low-grade (<?50%) atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis have an excess risk for cardiovascular and renal complications. This could be related to inflammatory factors being generated by the stenotic kidney. Moreover, even a kidney with low-grade stenosis clears less or produces more of the natural nitric oxide inhibitor ADMA.

Summary

Patients with low-grade atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis have an increased risk for a variety of complications. In addition, the abnormality is progressive. There is a case for setting up a prospective trial to examine whether angioplasty confers benefit in patients with low-grade renal artery stenosis.

     

Renal Artery Stenosis—When To Screen,What To Stent?

Renal artery stensosis (RAS) continues to be a problem for clinicians, with no clear consensus on how to investigate and assess the clinical significance of stenotic lesions and manage the findings. RAS caused by fibromuscular dysplasia is probably commoner than previously appreciated, should be actively looked for in younger hypertensive patients and can be managed successfully with angioplasty. Atheromatous RAS is associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular events and increased cardiovascular mortality, and is likely to be seen with increasing frequency. Evidence from large clinical trials has led clinicians away from recommending interventional revascularisation towards aggressive medical management. There is now interest in looking more closely at patient selection for intervention, with focus on intervening only in patients with the highest-risk presentations such as flash pulmonary oedema, rapidly declining renal function and severe resistant hypertension. The potential benefits in terms of improving hard cardiovascular outcomes may outweigh the risks of intervention in this group, and further research is needed.     

Should We Revascularize Before Implanting a Pacemaker?

BACKGROUND: The effect of coronary revascularization on disappearance of the severe conduction disturbances is still unclear. HYPOTHESIS: We sought to determine whether revascularization may induce recovery of sinus rhythm in patients with significant coronary artery disease and complete atrioventricular block (AVB). METHODS: Fifty-three patients who had third-degree AVB and significant coronary artery disease were enrolled. Patients with acute coronary syndromes were excluded. Thirty-three (62%) patients were men and the mean age was 65 +/- 10 y. All patients received a permanent dual-mode, dual-pacing, dual-sensing (DDD) pacemaker. Coronary disease was treated medically in 16 (30%) patients due to patient preference or ineligibility. Thirty-seven (70%) patients underwent a revascularization procedure (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]: 16, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]: 21 pts). Mean follow-up was 36 +/- 6 mo and patients were evaluated every 3 mo according to their resting electrocardiograms (ECGs) at each visit. RESULTS: In the medically treated group, 13 (81%) patients still had third-degree AVBs at the end of the follow-up period, while 3 (19%) patients returned to normal sinus rhythm. On the other hand, 27 out of 37 patients (73%) who were revascularized were still in complete AVB, and 10 patients from this group (27%) had returned to normal sinus rhythm. There was no statistically significant difference between the revascularized and medically treated groups in terms of need for a pacemaker. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have concomitant severe conduction disturbances and significant coronary disease may well receive a pacemaker before a revascularization procedure. Our data shows that coronary revascularization has little, if any, impact on returning to normal AV conduction.     

How Should We Advise Heart Failure Patients on Exercise and What Should We Tell Them?

The article discusses the problem of motivating and encouraging patients with heart failure to perform regular exercise training. Firstly, the benefits of exercise training are presented, and rational and convincing arguments justifying its implementation in heart failure patients are provided. Secondly, the issue of overcoming barriers to exercise training implementation is considered. Finally, the role of the medical team and family members in supporting patients with heart failure in long-term adherence to recommendations is defined and analyzed. In addition, the article presents various ways of performing exercise training easily.     

What Should We Tell Patients with Heart Failure about Sodium Restriction and How Should We Counsel Them?

This article is a review of current evidence regarding the recommended level of dietary sodium, involvement of family members in adoption of a low sodium diet, and evidence-based strategies to increase patient and family member willingness and ability to a follow a low sodium diet. The available evidence suggests that recommending a 2.5 to 3 g sodium diet will meet nutritional needs and decrease risk of hospitalizations. The best strategy identified for patient success is to fully involve both patients and family members in jointly reducing sodium intake. Motivational interviewing techniques should be used before counseling begins to guide patients and family members toward realization of the need to follow a low sodium diet. Successful counseling starts with determining perceptions, barriers, and individual characteristics that impede adherence. This information is incorporated into theory-based teaching strategies to promote behavior change and successful adoption of a low sodium diet.     

Viewpoint: The ENIGMAS Trial – When Should We Treat Patients with Moderate Aortic Stenosis?

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most frequent valvular heart disease encountered in our daily practice. Although there are clear guidelines for severe AS management, cardiologists often have few treatment options for patients with moderate AS; however, there is higher mortality in this patient subgroup versus an age‐matched population. The authors reviewed all of the studies on moderate AS, summarized the factors that increase disease progression and discussed an ideal trial design to prospectively evaluate AS progression factors using modern cardiology tools such as strain and magnetic resonance imaging.     

Carotid Artery Stenosis: Who Should Undergo Surgery and Who Should Undergo Stenting?

Carotid angioplasty and stent implantation is a rapidly evolving treatment option currently under evaluation in several randomized trials. Although this technique needs some special technical skills and knowledge, it is technically simpler than many other interventional procedures. Current data indicate that the results regarding success rate and complication rate may be similar to surgery. It will take years to get the results of the randomized trials that are currently planed or have already started. Unfortunately, the results of these studies will not reflect the state-of-the-art because new stents and new protection devices will become available during these studies. Therefore, in clinical practice the decision has to be made depending on individual patient and lesion characteristics. Patients with concomitant diseases considered to be a risk factor for surgical procedures and patients with contralateral occlusion may be better candidates for angioplasty and stenting. However, patients with diffuse disease of the common carotid artery and patients with difficult vascular access may be better candidates for surgery.