Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42290668›Full record

ReviewKidney medicine2026

Atherosclerotic Renovascular Disease: A Re-evaluation of Lesion Severity and Intervention.

Arend Jj Woittiez, Cornelis T Postma, Peter W de Leeuw

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Kidney medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Arend Jj WoittiezDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Group ZGT, Almelo/Hengelo, The Netherlands.
Cornelis T PostmaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Peter W de LeeuwDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) remains a complex contributor to hypertension and kidney disease. Although randomized trials failed to show benefit of revascularization on top of medical therapy over medical therapy alone, mounting evidence suggests that earlier stages of ARAS may still be clinically relevant. In this review, we will reevaluate assumptions about the relationship between lesion severity and clinical outcomes and highlight the discrepancy between angiographic definitions of significant stenosis and functional renal impairment. We suggest that with all degrees of angiographically identified ARAS, particularly in patients with refractory hypertension, Kidney failure, or flash pulmonary edema, the hemodynamic importance of the stenosis should be estimated. In this regard, a pressure drop of 10% or more across the stenosis is an indication that hypertension may be related to the obstruction. Because the classical definition of a hemodynamically significant stenosis precludes earlier and potentially more adequate opportunities for intervention, it is presently unknown if patients with ARAS of less than 60% stenosis would benefit from mechanical treatment. We suggest reevaluating the thresholds for intervention and call for new trials focused on early-stage atherosclerotic renal vascular disease.

Indexed as

atherosclerotic renal artery stenosisautoregulationfractional flow reservehypertensioninterventionrenovascular disease

Identifiers

PMID42290668
PMCPMC13254871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.