Talk Description
433Q - Nunzio Franco
Abstract
Aim:
We aimed to clarify the impact of renal revascularisation on patient outcomes in ARVD, with a specific focus on identifying which subgroups of patients are most likely to benefit from such interventions.
Method:
We reviewed the literature, examining existing research and evidence on ARVD, its impact on kidney function, and the outcomes of revascularisation efforts.
Results:
Four clinical trials explored the efficacy of interventional procedures in ARVD patients, showing limited success. While stenting improved arterial patency, renal function largely remained unchanged, with only modest blood pressure improvements noted. Renal revascularisation is advised for severe hypertension, ACE-I-induced uraemia, dialysis-dependent renal failure, or recent-onset renal artery occlusion, but its overall benefit in ARVD remains uncertain.
Conclusion:
The data suggests that renal revascularisation may not universally benefit all patients with ARVD, highlighting the importance of patient selection. The findings have significant implications for clinical practice, suggesting that personalised approaches to treatment could optimise outcomes for patients with ARVD. Future directions include refining diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols to better identify candidates for revascularisation.
Abstract
Aim:
We aimed to clarify the impact of renal revascularisation on patient outcomes in ARVD, with a specific focus on identifying which subgroups of patients are most likely to benefit from such interventions.
Method:
We reviewed the literature, examining existing research and evidence on ARVD, its impact on kidney function, and the outcomes of revascularisation efforts.
Results:
Four clinical trials explored the efficacy of interventional procedures in ARVD patients, showing limited success. While stenting improved arterial patency, renal function largely remained unchanged, with only modest blood pressure improvements noted. Renal revascularisation is advised for severe hypertension, ACE-I-induced uraemia, dialysis-dependent renal failure, or recent-onset renal artery occlusion, but its overall benefit in ARVD remains uncertain.
Conclusion:
The data suggests that renal revascularisation may not universally benefit all patients with ARVD, highlighting the importance of patient selection. The findings have significant implications for clinical practice, suggesting that personalised approaches to treatment could optimise outcomes for patients with ARVD. Future directions include refining diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols to better identify candidates for revascularisation.