Table 2.
Procedural Data of the Embolic Protection Device (EPD) and Control Groupsa
| EPD Group, N (%) |
Control Group, N (%) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Number of stenoses treated | 28 | 25 |
| Unilateral interventions | 10 (56)b | 13 (72)c |
| Bilateral interventions | 8 (44)d | 5 (38)e |
| Solitary kidney | 0 | 3 (17) |
| Number of stenoses protected | 20 (71) | NA |
| SpideRx | 10 (58) | NA |
| FilterWire | 8 (42) | NA |
| Technical success of EPD | 21/24 (88) | |
| FilterWire could not cross stenosis | 3 | NA |
| Diameter of artery ≤4.0 mm | 4 | NA |
| Early bifurcation | 1 | NA |
| Gadolinium used | 17 (94) | 9 (50) |
| Procedure complications | 2 (11) | 1 (6) |
No significant difference between EPD group and control group.
One patient had 2 renal arteries treated on the right side with stent placement.
One patient had 2 renal arteries treated on the left side with stent placement.
One patient had 3 stenoses treated: 2 on one side and one on the contralateral side which were all stented.
One patient with bilateral renal artery stenosis had a stent placed for atherosclerotic ostial disease and angioplasty on the contralateral side of fibromuscular dysplasia.
A second patient had bilateral renal artery stenosis involving an atherosclerotic ostial lesion which was stented and a bypass graft to the contralateral kidney which was treated with angioplasty.