Table 2 Blood pressure response after PTRA evaluated by out-of-office BP measurement
From: How should we define appropriate patients for percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty treatment?
First author (year) | Number of subjects | Mean age, years | Cause of RAS | Stenosis severity at baseline | Number of antihypertensive drugs | BP measurement | BP at baseline, mmHg | BP outcome, ∆SBP/DBP, mmHg | Follow up, months |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plouin et al. [20] | 23 | 59.2 ± 8.4 | ARAS | 60–74%: 65% ≥75%: 35% | 1.33 (0–4.5) | ABPM | 140 ± 15/81 ± 9 | −12 ± 20/−10 ± 11 | 6 |
Mangiacapra et al. [21] | 53 | 69 ± 11 | NR | 58 ± 16 | 3.2 ± 1.2 | ABPM | 162 ± 24/81 ± 12 | −20 ± 30/−2 ± 12 | 3 |
Adel et al. [22] | 27 | 63 | ARAS | NR | NR | ABPM | 189 ± 26/114 ± 24 | −11/−16 | 12 |
Protasiewicz et al. [23] | 37 | 67 ± 12 | NR | 60 ± 12 | 4.0 ± 1.4 | ABPM | 141 ± 14/73 ± 10 | −5/−2 | 3 |
Kądziela et al. [24] | 44 | 63.0 (53–72) | NR | 73 (66–80) | 3.5 (3–5) | ABPM | 136 (126–147)/71 (62–79) | −1 (−6 to −2)/−2 (−2 to −1) | 6 |
Hasegawa et al. [25] | 31 | 75 ± 7 | ARAS: 97% FMD: 3% | 75.2 ± 11.1 | 2.6 ± 0.9 | ABPM | 135 ± 17/74 ± 9 | NS | 1 |
Iwashima et al. [26] | 98 | 70 ± 9 | ARAS | 70–89%: 36% ≥90%: 61% | 2.6 ± 1.1 | Home BP monitoring | 145 ± 18/76 ± 12 | −10/−5 | 12 |
Iwashima et al. [26] | 28 | 39 ± 17 | FMD | 70–89%: 29% ≥90%: 71% | 2.1 ± 1.2 | Home BP monitoring | 153 ± 17/89 ± 16 | −22/−11 | 12 |
Courand et al. [27] | 72 | 68 ± 11 | ARAS | 78 ± 10 | 4.0 ± 1.0 | ABPM | 162 ± 25/80 ± 14 | 147 ± 22/72 ± 14 | 57 (34–132) days |
