62 A major vascular event – myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina or CCF, cerebrovascular disease and coronary or peripheral vascular interventional procedure was just as likely in both arms (50% over follow up, or

around 10% per year). Kaplan–Meier plots showed identical curves for mortality in each group approximating to 8% per year (Fig. 3). There was a suggestion that the prespecified subgroup of patients with rapidly declining function in the year prior to randomization had lower serum creatinine at 1 year of follow up but numbers with this characteristic were small and confidence intervals wide, preventing firm conclusions being drawn. Data regarding blood pressure, cardiovascular and mortality outcomes for the various subgroups are yet to be analysed. In a separate

analysis of the 163 patients with highly significant stenosis (bilateral click here >70% RAS, or RAS >70% in a solitary Venetoclax functioning kidney) again no benefits of revascularization to renal function or mortality was observed. Despite being post-hoc, this analysis was helpful given the limitations of the trial. Two cardiac substudies were designed to assess the effect of renal revascularization on cardiac structure and function using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MR) and echocardiography; results are due to be reported in 2011. Three key points are highlighted in the discussion of ASTRAL. First is the absence of a core laboratory to validate local estimates of RAS severity. As visual estimation of RAS severity can exceed angiographic findings,63 the implication is that patients may have had less significant stenoses than reported, which could reduce the likelihood of a worthwhile response to revascularization. However, 80% of patients randomized to revascularization actually did undergo the procedure. Secondly, the observed decline in renal function in the medical treatment group was considerably lower than anticipated based

on previous, albeit limited, data. This could have been due to more Astemizole effective treatment of hypertension in the current era, but it makes analysis of any potential benefits of intervention more challenging. The third issue is one of investigator equipoise in relation to suitability of patients for randomization. In ASTRAL if clinicians felt that a patient would definitely benefit from revascularization then they were excluded and only those patients where there was uncertainty about the outcomes after revascularization were included. This approach might limit the chances of finding beneficial effects. Considered from a different angle – what we have learned from ASTRAL is that undertaking revascularization in an entirely unselected manner in ARVD is not beneficial.