HomeJournal of the American Heart AssociationVol. 11, No. 17Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renovascular Disease‐Induced Resistant Hypertension: Further Considerations for 24‐Hour Blood Pressure Profiles Open AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toOpen AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBCardiovascular Disease Prevention in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renovascular Disease‐Induced Resistant Hypertension: Further Considerations for 24‐Hour Blood Pressure Profiles Keisuke Narita, MD, PhD, Satoshi Hoshide, MD, PhD and Kazuomi Kario, MD, PhD Keisuke NaritaKeisuke Narita https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2020-898X , Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, , Jichi Medical University School of Medicine, , Tochigi, , Japan, Search for more papers by this author , Satoshi HoshideSatoshi Hoshide , Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, , Jichi Medical University School of Medicine, , Tochigi, , Japan, Search for more papers by this author and Kazuomi KarioKazuomi Kario *Correspondence to: Kazuomi Kario, MD, PhD, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University School of Medicine, 3311‐1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke 329‐0498, Japan. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8251-4480 , Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, , Jichi Medical University School of Medicine, , Tochigi, , Japan, Search for more papers by this author Originally published17 Aug 2022https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025901Journal of the American Heart Association. 2022;11:e025901This article is commented on by the following:Vini Vidi StentiOther version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: August 25, 2022: Ahead of Print August 17, 2022: Ahead of Print In a recent issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), Reinhard et al. report that, in a prospective observational study with 2‐year follow‐up regarding the effect of renal artery stenting in patients with resistant hypertension, 24‐hour systolic blood pressure (BP) evaluated by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was decreased by 25.7 mm Hg from a baseline of 166.2 mm Hg, and an improvement in renal function was observed.1 Although participants were using 2 to 3 classes of antihypertensive medications and office BP measurements were used in the former studies,2, 3, 4 the novelty of Reinhard et al.'s observational study is the feature of “true resistant hypertension” among subjects who had used at least 4 different classes of antihypertensive medications and whose uncontrolled BP was evaluated by multiple ABPM measurements. All prospective observational studies, including that of Reinhard et al., reported that percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTRA), such as renal artery stenting, had a favorable effect on elevated BP. From these findings, PTRA for renovascular hypertension should be considered a reasonable treatment for the management of hypertension. Of course, PTRA is an invasive procedure with a risk of adverse complications. Before it can be widely applied to patients with renovascular hypertension, it must be shown that PTRA is superior to antihypertensive drug therapy.There are cases of uncontrolled blood pressure in patients who take appropriate medications and have adhered to recommended dietary and exercise interventions. In fact, their resistant hypertension may be due to secondary hypertension. A previous study reported that among patients with hypertension, 10% have secondary hypertension, including 3% with renovascular hypertension.5 In addition, it has been reported that 24% of older patients (mean age, 71 years) with resistant hypertension have significant renovascular disease.6 From these findings, renovascular hypertension is one of the important etiologies for resistant hypertension. Almost all cases of renal artery stenosis can be treated by stents. In addition, the causes of renal artery stenosis neatly divide into fibromuscular dysplasia and atherosclerosis, with patient groups of differing demographics and comorbidities. As an intervention therapy, PTRA is more strongly recommended for renovascular disease due to fibromuscular dysplasia than atherosclerosis. Compared with those of antihypertensive medications, the effects of PTRA for atherosclerotic renovascular disease on BP levels, improvement of renal function, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes have been controversial.Table shows previous studies including prospective observational studies and randomized controlled trials for the effects of PTRA on atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Almost all prospective observational studies after the 2000s have shown improved BP control or renal function.2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 Some previous observational studies have reported a decrease in systolic BP (SBP) of as much as 10 to 30 mm Hg 1 to 3 years after renal artery stenting.2, 3, 4 In the results of the Sapoval et al.'s study, BP decreased from 171/89 at baseline to 141/80 mm Hg at the 1‐year follow‐up.2 Likewise, in the REFORM (Reducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention) study, BP decreased from 150/74 at baseline to 141/78 mm Hg at the 9‐month follow‐up; patients with higher baseline BPs (SBP>180 mm Hg) showed a much stronger effect (a 48‐mm Hg decrease in SBP).3 Additionally, the HERCULES (Herculink Elite Renal Stent to Treat Renal Artery Stenosis) study showed the effect of renal artery stenting on lowering BP was long lived, with a 3‐year follow‐up showing a decrease in SBP from 162 to 146 mm Hg.4Table 1. Previous Studies (Post‐2000) Regarding the Effect of Renal Artery Angioplasty on Blood Pressure and Renal FunctionStudy (y)NumberBaselineOutcomesMean ageNo. of antihypertensive drugsBPRenal functionChanges in BPChanges in renal functionCVD outcomesProspective, PTRABeutler et al. (2001)7N=6368 y2180/110 mm Hgs‐Cr 171 mmol/LSBP levels were 180, 160, and 160 mm Hg at baseline, 6 mos, and 12 mos.In 56 cases, s‐Cr improved from 182 to 154 mmol/L.2 cases of death after <6 mos.Radermacher et al. (2001)8N=131RI≥0.8: 67 yRI<0.8: 55 yRI≥0.8: 3.3RI<0.8: 3.2RI≥0.8: 164/83 mm HgRI<0.8: 150/89 mm Hg(24‐h BP in ABPM)CCr 33 mL/min in RI ≥0.8, 68 mL/min in RI <0.8, Using the evaluation of echography RIIn RI ≥0.8, 164/83 to 163/86 mm Hg at 5 y (NS). In RI <0.8, BP was reduced from 150/89 to 135/80 mm Hg at 5 yPoor prognosis in RI ≥0.8, end‐stage renal disease 46%, death 29% at 5 y‐FU.Zeller et al. (2003)9N=21567 y3145/79 mm Hgs‐Cr 1.51 mg/dL147/79 mm Hg at 1 yr (NS).s‐Cr improved from 1.51 to 1.19 mg/dL…Sapoval et al. (2010)2N=25170 y≥3171/89 mm Hgs‐Cr 283 mmol/L, eGFR 54 mL/min per 1.73 m2, CKD 33%141/80 mm Hg at 1 yr, 71% improved BP control.*s‐Cr, from 283 to 209 mmol/L at 12 mos…Bersin et al. (2013),3 REFORMN=10072 y‐150/74 mm Hgs‐Cr 1.3 mg/dL, eGFR 61 mL/min per 1.73 m2, CKD 59%141/78 mm Hg at 9 mos (160–180 mm Hg at baseline, −30 mm Hg; >180 mm Hg at baseline, −48 mm Hg)NS. at 9 mos…Chrysant et al. (2014),4 HERCULESN=202‐≥2162/78 mm Hgs‐Cr 1.2 mg/dL, eGFR 58 mL/min per 1.73 m2SBP levels were 162, 145, 145, 144, and 146 mm Hg at baseline, 1 mo, 9mos, 2 and 3 y.NS. at 3 y…Jujo et al. (2016)17N=31‐‐135/74 mm Hg(24‐h BP in ABPM)s‐Cr 1.18 mg/dLResponders showed a higher 24‐h BP at baseline than non‐responders (148/81 mm Hg vs 126/70 mm Hg), but this relationship was not shown in office BP (149/75 vs 144/78 mm Hg).……Randomized controlled trial, PTRA adding DT vs DT alonevan Jaarsveld et al. (2000),10DRASTICPTRA (n=56)DT (n=50)PTRA: 59 yDT: 61 y2.3 vs 1.8 (NS)185/107 mm Hg vs 179/101 mm Hg (NS)s‐Cr <2.3 mg/dLThere were no differences in BP levels, daily drug use, or renal function at 12 mos.NS.…Bax et al. (2009),11 STARPTRA (n=64)DT (n=76)PTRA: 66 yDT: 67 y2.8 vs 2.9 (NS)160/83 mm Hg vs 163/82 mm Hg (NS)eGFR 46 mL/min per 1.73 m2There were no differences in BP levels or daily drug use at 2 y FU.NS.No differences in mortality and CVD events at 2 y FUASTRAL Investigators, (2009),12 ASTRALPTRA (n=403)DT (n=403)PTRA: 70 yDT: 71 y2.8 vs 2.8 (NS)149/76 mm Hg vs 152/76 mm Hgs‐Cr 179 mmol/L vs 178 mmol/L; eGFR 40 mL/min per 1.73 m2 vs 40 mL/min per 1.73 m2There were no differences in BP levels at 5 yrs FU (141/73 mm Hg vs 141/70 mm Hg).NS.No difference in overall mortality at 5 y FUCooper et al. (2014),13 CORALPTRA (n=467)DT (n=480)PTRA: 68 yDT: 69 y2.1 in the group of all participantsSBP 150 mm Hg vs 150 mm Hg.eGFR 58 mL/min per 1.73 m2 vs 57 mL per min per 1.73 m2The PTRA group showed an advantage (−2.3 mm Hg); number of meds: 3.3 vs 3.5.NS.No difference in cardiovascular mortality at 5 yABPM indicates ambulatory BP monitoring; ASTRAL, Angioplasty and Stenting for Renal Artery Lesions; BP, blood pressure; CCr, creatinine clearance; CORAL, Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DRASTIC, Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative; DT, drug therapy; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration; FU, follow‐up; HERCULES, Herculink Elite Renal Stent to Treat Renal Artery Stenosis; Meds, medications; NS, not significant; REFORM, Reducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention; RI, renal resistive index; SBP, systolic BP; s‐Cr, serum creatinine; and STAR, Stent Placement in Patients with Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal Function.*Reduced diastolic BP to <90 mm Hg and/or SBP <140 mm Hg on the same or reduced number of meds, or reduced diastolic BP by at least 15 mm Hg with the same or reduced number of meds.Other previous randomized controlled trials have compared the effect on BP levels and improvement of renal function between patients in whom PTRA is added to drug therapy and those with drug therapy alone and have reported no advantage of adding PTRA to drug therapy.10, 11, 12, 13 In the STAR (Stent Placement in Patients with Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal Function) trial in 2009, 145 patients who had a stable BP control (BP <140/90 mm Hg) and ostial renal artery stenosis of at least 50% were included. These patients were randomized to optimal drug therapy including antihypertensives, statins, and aspirin or to renal artery stenting in addition to optimal drug therapy. No significant difference between the 2 groups was found for estimated glomerular filtration rate declines, BP levels, and CVD outcomes at the 2‐year follow‐up.11 The ASTRAL (Angioplasty and Stenting for Renal Artery Lesions) study in 2009 was a larger trial in 806 patients who were randomized to drug therapy alone or drug therapy plus renal artery stenting; at baseline, the mean BPs were 152/76 and 149/76 mm Hg, respectively. Similar to the results of the STAR trial, there were no differences between the 2 groups in BP change or mortality at the 5‐year follow‐up.12 Moreover, the largest randomized controlled trial, the CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) trial in 2014, was conducted in 947 patients, all of whom had SBP >150 mm Hg and were taking 2 or more antihypertensive agents. Although there were no significant differences in CVD outcomes or worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate between the 2 groups, adding renal artery stenting to drug therapy showed a modest advantage in BP lowering compared with drug therapy alone (−2.3 mm Hg [95% CI, −4.4 to −0.2 mm Hg], P=0.03).13 Based on these findings, current international guidelines do not recommend catheter or surgical angioplasty for all cases with renal artery stenosis.14 The current US guideline from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention recommends PTRA for patients who have complications of cardiac disturbance syndrome (flash pulmonary edema or unstable angina), chronic kidney disease stage IV, recurrent congestive heart failure, and resistant hypertension.14 The findings from Reinhard et al.'s study thus may support the benefit of renal artery stenting for patients with resistant hypertension due to renal artery stenosis.Who is the best responder to PTRA? Radermacher et al. used a renal artery resistive index evaluated by Doppler ultrasonography to predict the outcome of PTRA for renal artery stenosis.8 They reported that a renal resistive index value <80 is a predictor for improvement of BP level in response to PTRA. Courand et al.'s prospective observational study using ABPM reported that younger age, lower body mass index, and preserved renal function (higher estimated glomerular filtration rate) were associated with achievement of good BP control by renal artery stenting in patients with resistant hypertension due to renal artery stenosis.15 Similarly, Fujihara et al. reported that response factors for PTRA were younger age and higher BP at baseline.16 The previous study using ABPM also reported that higher ambulatory BP at baseline was related with a good response to PTRA, but this relationship was not shown in office BP.17 In this issue of the JAHA, we find that the participants in the study of Reinhard et al. had uncontrolled BP by ABPM despite their use of multiple medications. Especially in patients with uncontrolled resistant hypertension or refractory hypertension, PTRA would be effective at lowering BP. Moreover, from a previous study's findings, the presence of resistant hypertension, younger age, lower body mass index, and preserved renal function may be favorable conditions for good response of PTRA.Figure shows the suspected mechanisms of BP elevation in renal artery stenosis and recommendations for management of renovascular hypertension. Renal hypoperfusion due to renal artery stenosis induces excessive activation of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system, causing both sympathetic nervous system activation and fluid retention, which may lead to an elevated BP level at bedtime and/or an abnormal nocturnal BP dipping pattern.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 1. Mechanisms and management of renovascular hypertension.Renal artery stenosis leads to renal hypoperfusion, which induces excessive activation of the RAAS and the sympathetic nervous systems, as well as fluid retention caused by the decrease in pressure natriuresis. These abnormalities cause elevation of BP levels and flash pulmonary edema. Based on the mechanisms of renovascular hypertension, we speculated that an increase in nighttime BP levels and abnormal nocturnal BP dipping may occur in patients with resistant hypertension due to renovascular disease. Nighttime BP is an important target to prevent CVD events especially in resistant hypertension. In the management of renovascular hypertension, interventional renal angioplasty including PTRA should be considered in patients with poor BP control despite adequate use of multiple antihypertensive medications. *Contraindicated in bilateral stenosis and taking care of renal dysfunction. ACEI indicates angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB, angiotensin receptor antagonist; BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; CHF, congestive heart failure; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CVD, cardiovascular disease; eGFR; estimated glomerular filtration ratio; HT, hypertension; PTRA, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty; and RAAS, renin angiotensin aldosterone system.Disturbed patterns of nocturnal BP dipping are more important risk factors for CVD. Our research group reported that in patients with resistant hypertension, nighttime BP assessed by home BP monitoring is a superior predictor for CVD incidence compared with daytime home BP.18 Based on the known mechanisms of renovascular hypertension, we speculated that the nighttime BP level may be elevated in patients with resistant hypertension due to renal artery stenosis. This nighttime BP level in renovascular hypertension may be a favorable treatment target to prevent CVD incidence in these patients, as intensive management of nighttime BP is important in all resistant hypertension. From this viewpoint, scientific research evaluating the effect on nighttime BP of adding PTRA to drug therapy is needed.Second, in clinical practice, atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is typically comorbid with systemic atherosclerosis, which makes patients with atherosclerotic renal artery at high risk of CVD events. It has been reported that patients with renal artery stenosis have high frequencies of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as a complication: 10% develop stroke, 6% to 40% develop coronary artery disease, and 20% to 38% develop abdominal aortic aneurysm. Indeed, the incidence of atherosclerotic heart disease is about 4 times more likely in patients with renal artery stenosis than in the general population (304/1000 patient years versus 74/1000 patient years).19 Patients with renal artery stenosis complicated with resistant hypertension thus require strict risk management for CVD including intensive control of BP. A current meta‐analysis assessing total 344 716 participants in 48 randomized controlled trials regarding pharmacological BP lowering for prevention of CVD events has reported a hazard ratio of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86–0.92) for each 5‐mm Hg reduction in systolic BP for composite cardiovascular events.20 Although a 5‐mm Hg decrease in SBP may seem slight, it does have a risk‐reducing effect for CVD events. Therefore, it may be important to add PTRA to drug therapy in patients with resistant hypertension due to atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis who have a high risk of CVD events.The results of Reinhard et al.'s study in JAHA thus may support the benefit of renal artery stenting for patients with uncontrolled resistant hypertension due to renal artery stenosis. If limited to those predicted to be good responders, the addition of PTRA to drug therapy may lead to risk reduction of CVD events in patients with renal artery stenosis‐induced resistant hypertension. Moreover, a greater freedom from the mechanisms of renovascular hypertension including excessive activation of the renal angiotensin aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system, excessive fluid retention, nighttime BP elevation, abnormal nocturnal BP dipping, and elevated BP variability may occur. Again, from this perspective, the relationship of PTRA with nighttime BP control and BP variability should be assessed to discover new aspects of the effect of PTRA.DisclosuresK. Kario has received research funding from Omron Healthcare Co., Fukuda Denshi, and A&D Co. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.Footnotes*Correspondence to: Kazuomi Kario, MD, PhD, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University School of Medicine, 3311‐1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke 329‐0498, Japan. Email: [email protected]ac.jpThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.For Disclosures, see page 5.See Viewpoint by Cooper et al.References1 Reinhard M, Schousboe K, Andersen U, Buus NH, Rantanen JB, Bech JN, Mafi HM, Langfeldt S, Bharadwaz A, Hørlyck A, et al. Renal artery stenting in consecutive high‐risk patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease: a prospective 2‐center cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022; 0:e024421. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024421LinkGoogle Scholar2 Sapoval M, Tamari I, Goffette P, Downes M, Senechal Q, Fanelli F, Reimer P, Negaiwi Z, De Cassin P, Heye S, et al. One year clinical outcomes of renal artery stenting: the results of ODORI registry. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010; 33:475–483. doi: 10.1007/s00270-009-9733-1CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Bersin RM, Ansel G, Rizzo A, Smouse HB, Sinha S, Sachar R, Dave R, Weinstock BS, Feldman R, et al. Nine‐month results of the REFORM study: a prospective, single‐arm, multicenter clinical study of the safety and effectiveness of the formula™ balloon‐expandable stent for treatment of renal artery stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 82:266–273. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24481CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Chrysant GS, Bates MC, Sullivan TM, Bachinsky WB, Popma JJ, Peng L, Omran HL, Jaff MR; the HERCULES Investigators . Proper patient selection yields significant and sustained reduction in systolic blood pressure following renal artery stenting in patients with uncontrolled hypertension: long‐term results from the HERCULES trial. J Clin Hypertens. 2014; 16:497–503. doi: 10.1111/jch.12341CrossrefGoogle Scholar5 Anderson GH, Blackman N, Streeten DH. The effect of age on prevalence of secondary forms of hypertension in 4,429 consecutively referred patients. J Hypertens. 1994; 12:609–615. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199405000-00015CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Benjamin MM, Fazel P, Filardo G, Choi JW, Stoler RC. Prevalence of and risk factors of renal artery stenosis in patients with resistant hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 2014; 113:687–690. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.10.046CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Beutler JJ, Van Ampting JM, Van De Ven PJ, Koomans HA, Beek FJ, Woittiez AJ, Mali WP. Long‐term effects of arterial stenting on kidney function for patients with ostial atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and renal insufficiency. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001; 12:1475–1481. doi: 10.1681/ASN.V1271475CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Radermacher J, Chavan A, Bleck J, Vitzthum A, Stoess B, Gebel MJ, Galanski M, Koch KM, Haller H. Use of doppler ultrasonography to predict the outcomes of therapy for renal‐artery stenosis. N Engl J Med.2001; 344:410–417. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200102083440603CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Zeller T, Frank U, Müller C, Bürgelin K, Sinn L, Bestehorn HP, Cook‐Bruns N, Neumann FJ. Predictors of improved renal function after percutaneous stent‐supported angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis. Circulation. 2003; 108:2244–2249. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000095786.44712.2ALinkGoogle Scholar10 van Jaarsveld BC, Krijnen P, Pieterman H, Derkx FH, Deinum J, Postma CT, Dees A, Woittiez AJ, Bartelink AK, Man in't Veld AJ, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous angioplasty vs continued medical therapy for hypertensive patients with atheromatous renal artery stenosis. Scottish and Newcastle renal artery stenosis collaborative study group. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342:1007–1014. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1000599CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Bax L, Woittiez AJ, Kouwenberg HJ, Mali WP, Buskens E, Beek FJ, Braam B, Huysmans FT, Schultze Kool LJ, Rutten MJ, et al. Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150:840–848. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-12-200906160-00119CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 The ASTRAL Investigators . Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361:1953–1962. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905368CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Cutlip DE, Jamerson K, Henrich W, Reid DM, Cohen DJ, Matsumoto AH, Steffes M, Jaff MR, et al. Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal‐artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:13–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310753CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Rocha‐Singh KJ, Eisenhauer AC, Textor SC, Cooper CJ, Tan WA, Matsumoto AH, Rosenfield K, American Heart Association writing group 8 . Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease Symposium II: intervention for renal artery disease. Circulation. 2008; 118:2873–2878. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191178LinkGoogle Scholar15 Courand PY, Dinic M, Lorthioir A, Bobrie G, Grataloup C, Denarié N, Soulat G, Mousseaux E, Sapoval M, Azizi M. Resistant hypertension and atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: effects of angioplasty on ambulatory blood pressure. A retrospective uncontrolled single‐center study. Hypertension. 2019; 74:1516–1523. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13393LinkGoogle Scholar16 Fujihara M, Yokoi Y, Abe T, Soga Y, Yamashita T, Miyashita Y, Nakamura M, Yokoi H, Ito S; on behalf of the J‐RAS study Investigators . Clinical outcome of renal artery stenting for hypertension and chronic kidney disease up to 12 months in the J‐RAS study; prospective, single‐arm, multicenter clinical study. Circ J. 2015; 79:351–359. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-14-0908CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Jujo K, Saito K, Ishida I, Furuki Y, Ouchi T, Kim A, Suzuki Y, Sekiguchi H, Yamaguchi J, Ogawa H, et al. Efficacy of 24‐hour blood pressure monitoring in evaluating response to percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty. Circ J. 2016; 80:1922–1930. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-16-0347CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Narita K, Hoshide S, Kario K. Nighttime home blood is associated with the cardiovascular disease events risk in treatment‐resistant hypertension. Hypertension. 2022; 79:e18–e20. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18534LinkGoogle Scholar19 Coyler WR, Cooper CJ. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and renal artery stenosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2009; 52:238–242. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2009.09.004CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration . Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant‐level data meta‐analysis. Lancet. 2021; 397:1625–1636. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00590-0CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesVini Vidi StentiChristopher J. Cooper, et al. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2022;11 September 6, 2022Vol 11, Issue 17Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley BlackwellThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025901PMID: 35975740 Manuscript receivedApril 14, 2022Manuscript acceptedJune 16, 2022Originally publishedAugust 17, 2022Manuscript revisedJune 11, 2022 Keywordsmanagement on hypertensionatherosclerotic renovascular diseasecardiovascular disease preventiontreatment resistant hypertensionPDF download SubjectsHypertension
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Apr 8, 2024
CADTH 