Balloon angioplasty versus medical therapy for hypertensive patients with renal artery obstruction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is the most common cause of secondary hypertension. Balloon angioplasty is widely used for the treatment of hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of balloon angioplasty (with and without stenting) with medical therapy on blood pressure control, renal function, frequency of renovascular complications, and side effects in hypertensive patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewers performed a search of MEDLINE from 1966 to December 2002, EMBASE from 1980 to 2002, Science Citation Index from 1990 to 2002, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and personal files to identify randomised controlled trials comparing balloon angioplasty with medical therapy in hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis. In addition, reference lists of papers resulting from this search were hand-searched, and authors of published trials were contacted to enquire if they were aware of any eligible unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing balloon angioplasty with medical therapy in hypertensive patients with haemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis (greater than 50 per cent reduction in luminal diameter and minimal follow-up of six months). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two investigators independently extracted data on trial design, characteristics of trial participants, types of interventions, and outcome measures. The quality of the available data precluded a formal meta-analysis to assess the effect on blood pressure, renal function, and number and defined daily doses of antihypertensive drugs. Peto's odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes such as the presence or absence of patent vessels and renovascular complications. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials involving 210 patients met the inclusion criteria. In unselected patients there was a consistent, but statistically non significant trend towards lower blood pressure in the balloon angioplasty group. Patients treated with balloon angioplasty required less antihypertensive drugs in two of three trials, and were more likely to have patent renal arteries after 12 months (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 9.8). There were no differences in renal function. There were significantly fewer cardiovascular and renovascular complications in patients treated with angioplasty (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70, test for heterogeneity p > 0.1). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Available data are insufficient to conclude that balloon angioplasty is superior to medical therapy in lowering blood pressure of patients with renal artery stenosis in whom blood pressure can be controlled with medical therapy. In patients with hypertension refractory to medical therapy, there is some weak evidence that balloon angioplasty lowers blood pressure more effectively than medical therapy. Balloon angioplasty appears to be safe and leads to fewer cardiovascular and renovascular complications. There is a need for randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of balloon angioplasty and medical therapy on the preservation of renal function in the long term.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».