Back to: Report Your Findings

Data Synthesis:
Eighty-three studies met eligibility criteria. In 5 of 7 RCTs, PTRAS and medical therapy led to similar BP control in patients with ARAS, and no RCTs showed statistically significant differences in kidney function, mortality, RRT, cardiovascular events, or pulmonary edema.

Eight NRCSs had more variable results, finding mostly no significant differences in mortality, RRT, or cardiovascular events but heterogeneous effects on kidney function and BP. Procedure-related adverse events were rare, and medication-related adverse events were not reported.

Two RCTs found no patient characteristics that were associated with outcomes with either PTRAS or medical therapy. Single-group studies found various but inconsistent factors that predict outcomes. Case reports provided examples of clinical improvement after PTRAS in patients with acute decompensation.

Limitation:
Limited clinical applicability and power in RCTs, and possible publication bias and lack of adjusted analyses in NRCSs.

Conclusion:
The strength of evidence regarding the relative benefits and harms of PTRAS versus medical therapy alone for patients with ARAS is low. Studies have generally focused on patients with less severe ARAS.

Primary Funding Source:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

This abstract is a total of 295 words, just under the typical limit of 300 words. Note how some of the headings have just one or two sentences. You want to be as brief as possible while touching on the main takeaways for your research.