Stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: One poorly designed trial after another

THE STAR TRIAL

In the Stent Placement in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal Function (STAR) trial,⁷ 140 patients with a creatinine clearance of less than 80 mL/min/1.73m², renal artery stenosis greater than 50%, and well-controlled blood pressure were randomized to either renal artery stenting plus medical therapy (n = 64) or medical therapy alone (n = 76). The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included measures of safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Authors’ conclusions

“Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with [atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis], focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.”⁷

Serious flaws

A number of serious flaws render this study uninterpretable.

Mild renal artery stenosis. At least 33% of the patients in the study had mild renal artery stenosis (50%–70%), and 12 (19%) of the 64 patients in the group randomized to stenting actually had stenosis of less than 50%. How can one expect there to be a benefit to stenting in patients with mild (and hemodynamically insignificant) renal artery stenosis? This is especially true when the primary end point is a change in renal function.

More than half of the patients had unilateral disease. It seems intuitive that if one were to plan a trial with a primary end point of a change in renal function, only patients with bilateral renal artery stenosis of greater than 70% or with stenosis of greater than 70% to a solitary functioning kidney would be included. One would not expect that patients with unilateral disease and a stenosis of less than 70% would derive any benefit from revascularization.

Not all “stent” patients received stents. All of the patients in the medical group received medication and there were no crossovers. However, only 46 (72%) of the 64 patients randomized to stenting actually received a stent, while 18 (28%) did not. There were two technical failures, and 12 patients should not have been randomized because they had less than 50% stenosis on angiography and thus were not stented. Yet all 64 patients were analyzed (by intention to treat) in the stent group. With these numbers, one could predict that the results would be negative.

Like DRASTIC, this trial was underpowered, meaning that the chance of a type 2 statistical error is high. In fact, the editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine, in a note accompanying the article, cautioned that the study “was underpowered to provide a definitive estimate of efficacy.”⁷ If the study was underpowered to answer the question at hand, why was it deemed worthy of publication?

High complication rates. The periprocedural complication and death rates were much higher than in many other reports on renal artery stenting (see details below).⁵