-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY INVESTIGATIONS: Are not warranted in the vast majority of hypertensive patients. Characteristics identifying the patients at risk for secondary hypertension can be used to define the small percentage of patients with hypertension who require more extensive diagnostic testing and management of their condition. Exposure to certain medicines, foods or drugs may cause reversible rises in blood pressure. Renovascular and adrenal diseases cause curable forms of hypertension. IN MANY CASES, THE PATIENT'S HISTORY: Examination and simple tests can detect such exposures and disorders. Checking for secondary hypertension is therefore an early step required for the management of all patients with hypertension, provided it is based on clinical signs and inexpensive tests. This primary screening cannot exclude the possibility of renovascular or adrenal disease in a small number of asymptomatic patients. The risk of missing a diagnosis is acceptable provided that blood pressure is normalized by non-specific antihypertensive treatment. However, more extensive etiologic investigation is required in patients who subsequently develop resistant hypertension. This secondary screening requires imaging and biochemical tests that are not required for primary screening. CORRECTION OF THE CAUSES: Of secondary forms of hypertension may restore blood pressure to normal. The patient's age affects the reversibility of renovascular and adrenal hypertension after etiologic treatment: the younger the patient, the higher the probability of blood pressure normalization.
La Presse Médicale 04/2002; 31(8):371-8. · 0.67 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study analyzed the initial presentation and revascularization outcomes of patients with radiation-induced renal artery stenosis, a rare complication of therapeutic irradiation. Of 11 patients with renal artery stenosis after irradiation, 7 patients fulfilled the following criteria: normotension before irradiation, radiation dose greater than 25 grays delivered to the renal arteries, associated perirenal radiation-induced lesions, and absence of arterial disease outside the radiation field. The median age at irradiation was 30 years, and the median local irradiation dose was 40 grays. The median time from irradiation to referral was 13 years. All patients were hypertensive at referral, with a median blood pressure (BP) of 171/102 mm Hg and median treatment score of two. The median glomerular filtration rate was 67 mL/min. Two patients had bilateral stenoses and 1 patient had stenosis affecting a single kidney. Stenoses were proximal in 6 patients and truncal in 1 patient, and all had the appearance of atherosclerotic stenosis. Percutaneous transluminal renal artery angioplasty (PTRA) was successful in 5 patients, but required multiple insufflations. PTRA failed in 1 patient, who subsequently underwent an aortorenal bypass. After a median follow-up of 36 months, 2 patients had died of noncardiovascular causes and 4 patients remained hypertensive, with a median BP of 136/85 mm Hg and median treatment score of two. No restenosis occurred, but aneurysms developed at the site of angioplasty in 1 patient. If hypertension occurs even decades after irradiation, a radiation-induced renal artery stenosis should be sought in patients who have undergone abdominal irradiation.
American Journal of Kidney Diseases 09/2001; 38(2):302-9. · 5.43 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The general use of bilateral rather than separate renal function evaluation has led to the publication of conflicting results concerning the effect of percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty (PTRA) on renal function, especially in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively, in standardized conditions, split renal function (SRF) and GFR outcome after successful PTRA, by measuring single kidney GFR with synchronous inulin or (51)Cr-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid clearance and (99m)Tc-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid scintigraphy, in a well-defined population of patients with unilateral renal artery stenosis. Thirty-two consecutive hypertensive patients (18 with atherosclerotic and 14 with dysplastic disease) with significant unilateral stenosis of the main native renal artery (> or = 60%) and normal renal function were included in the study. Renal and angiographic follow-up evaluations were performed 6 mo after PTRA. PTRA alone or combined with stenting (n = 2) was technically successful in all patients. Repeat PTRA was necessary in two patients, evaluated 6 mo after the second PTRA. Six mo after PTRA, total GFR had increased slightly but significantly in the 29 patients with positive lateralization indices. SRF and single-kidney GFR of the stenotic kidney increased significantly, whereas concurrently the GFR and SRF of the nonstenotic kidney decreased significantly. Six mo after successful PTRA reducing renal ischemia, a reversal of both the hypoperfusion of the stenotic side and the hyperperfusion of the nonstenotic side was observed, which was accompanied by a slight increase in total GFR.
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 07/2001; 12(6):1235-41. · 9.66 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Pheochromocytoma is a catecholamine-secreting neoplasm of chromaffin tissue. It is a rare disease. Biochemical tests should be performed only in patients at high risk of pheochromocytoma, and an imaging procedure only in those with positive biochemical tests. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS: The most specific and sensitive diagnostic test for the disease is the determination of plasma or urinary metanephrines. The tumor can be located by computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and specific scintigraphy. Ten to 20% of pheochromocytomas result from hereditary diseases, including multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, von Hippel Lindau disease, and neurofibromatosis 1. Familial cases are diagnosed earlier, and are more frequently bilateral and recurring than sporadic cases. About 10% of the cases are malignant either at first operation or during follow-up, malignancy being diagnosed by the presence of lymph node, visceral or bone metastases. The probability of a recurrence is positively correlated with the urinary excretion of metanephrines and tumor size. Recurrences are more frequent in cases with ectopic tumors and in those with a low plasma epinephrine to total catecholamine ratio. Patients, especially those with familial tumors or low epinephrine secretion, should be followed-up indefinitely. FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS: Treatment for malignant recurrences includes surgery, therapeutic embolization, chemotherapy, and the application of therapeutic doses of metaiodobenzylguanidine. Metyrosine, phenoxybenzamine, or somatostatin analogs may help to control blood pressure and to alleviate symptoms in patients with malignant pheochromocytoma; however such a treatment has no antiproliferative effect.
La Revue de Médecine Interne 01/2001; 21(12):1075-85. · 0.61 Impact Factor
-
A La Batide-Alanore
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Refractory or resistant hypertension is an entity without a universally recognised definition. The ANAES (Agence Nationale d'Accréditation et d'Evaluation en Santé) working group in 1997 considered hypertension to be drug-resistant when, at two successive consultations (2 measurements at each consultation) the readings were > or = 160 mmHg for the systolic and or > or = 100 mmHg for the diastolic blood pressure despite triple therapy including a diuretic. These criteria were lowered to 140/90 mmHg in the latest ANAES recommendations published in 2000. The frequency of refractory hypertension varies according to the population studied and the recommendations. Resistance to therapy is usually multifactorial. If one of the main causes is volume overload due to inadequate diuretic therapy, risk factors to drug-resistance must be looked for and evaluated when antihypertensive therapy is started. If ambulatory blood pressure recordings or self-measured readings confirm that the hypertension is not controlled, it is recommended that the patient be referred to a specialised team to exclude unrecognised secondary hypertension or to adapt antihypertensive therapy.
Archives des maladies du coeur et des vaisseaux 11/2000; 93(11 Suppl):1474-8. · 0.40 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis typically occurs in high-risk patients with coexistent vascular disease elsewhere. Patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis may develop progressive renal failure but have a much higher risk of dying of stroke or myocardial infarction than of progressing to endstage renal disease. Recent controlled trials comparing medication to revascularization have shown that only a minority of such patients can expect hypertension cure, whereas trials designed to document the ability of revascularization to prevent progressive renal failure are not yet available. Revascularization should be undertaken in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and resistant hypertension or heart failure, and probably in those with rapidly deteriorating renal function or an increase in plasma creatinine levels during angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition. With or without revascularization, medical therapy using antihypertensive agents, statins, and aspirin is necessary in almost all cases.
Current Hypertension Reports 11/2000; 2(5):482-9. · 2.50 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: When measuring BP, the physician induces a transient pressor response triggered by an alarm reaction. This 'white-coat effect' can influence therapeutic decisions. Whether it depends on the characteristics of the physician has not been evaluated.
To assess the 'white-coat effect' induced by several physicians in a large sample of patients, using the blood pressure measured by trained nurses as a reference.
Referral hypertension clinic.
Patients were selected for the study if they had been referred for the first time to the clinic and if they had had their supine systolic/diastolic blood pressure measured by a trained nurse (mean of the last two of three measurements taken every 1 min by an oscillometric device) and a physician (auscultatory method using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer). Physicians were included in the study provided they had seen at least 25 patients during the study period. The between-physician difference was assessed using linear regression analysis. Physician blood pressure was the dependent and nurse blood pressure was the independent variable.
From 1 January 1997 to 15 September 1997, 1062 patients (50% male, aged 52 +/- 14 years), seen by 10 physicians (26-187 patients per physician) and one nurse were included for analysis. The mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure for physicians was 162 +/- 27/ 97 +/- 15 mmHg and that for the nurse was 155 +/- 24/ 88 +/- 14 mmHg. The nurse-physician differences were -6 mmHg (range -67 to +66) for systolic and -8 mmHg (-44 to +31) for diastolic blood pressures. Major differences were observed between individual physicians. Intercepts of the physician blood pressure versus nurse blood pressure relationship ranged from 0.1 -60.7 mmHg for systolic and from 13.3-55.3 mmHg for diastolic pressures. The slopes of this relationship differed less between physicians for systolic (0.72-1) than for diastolic pressures (0.56-0.97). There was no difference between the patients seen by physicians in patients' age, sex, tobacco consumption, anti-hypertensive treatment or target-organ damage.
Large between-physician differences exist in the magnitude of the white-coat effect that cannot be explained by patient characteristics. Physicians should therefore not make any decisions based on blood pressure measured manually during a first encounter.
Journal of Hypertension 05/2000; 18(4):391-8. · 4.02 Impact Factor
-
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 05/2000; 15(4):536-8. · 3.40 Impact Factor
-
La Presse Médicale 05/1999; 28(16):852. · 0.67 Impact Factor
-
Liesbeth Bax,
Willem P Th M Mali,
Erik Buskens,
Hein A Koomans,
J J Beutler,
B Braam,
F J A Beek,
T J Rabelink,
C T Postma,
F T M Huysmans, [......],
J M A van Engelshoven,
M J C M Rutten,
G A van Montfrans,
J A Reekers,
P F Plouin, A La Batide Alanore,
M Azizi,
A Raynaud,
P N Harden,
M Cowling
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) is associated with progressive loss of renal function and is one of the most important causes of renal failure in the elderly. Current treatment includes restoration of the renal arterial lumen by endovascular stent placement. However, this treatment only affects damage caused by ARAS due to the stenosis and ensuing post-stenotic ischemia. ARAS patients have severe general vascular disease. Atherosclerosis and hypertension can also damage the kidney parenchyma causing renal failure. Medical treatment focuses on the latter. Lipid-lowering drugs (statins) could reduce renal failure progression and could reduce the overall high cardiovascular risk. The additional effect on preserving renal function of stent placement as compared to medical therapy alone is unknown. Therefore, the STAR-study aims to compare the effects of renal artery stent placement together with medication vs. medication alone on renal function in ARAS patients. METHOD: Patients with an ARAS of > or = 50% and renal failure (creatinine (Cr) clearance < 80 mL/min/1.73 m2) are randomly assigned to stent placement with medication or to medication alone. Medication consists of statins, anti-hypertensive drugs and antiplatelet therapy. Patients are followed for 2 yrs with extended follow-up to 5 yrs. The primary outcome of this study is a reduction in Cr clearance > 20% compared to baseline. This trial will include 140 patients.
Journal of nephrology 16(6):807-12. · 1.65 Impact Factor
-
