Renal denervation for the treatment of hypertension: Making a new start, getting it right

Efficacy and safety of sympathetic mapping and ablation of renal nerves for the treatment of hypertension (SMART): 6-month follow-up of a randomised, controlled trial

Background

Previous trials of renal denervation (RDN) have been designed to investigate reduction of blood pressure (BP) as the primary efficacy endpoint using non-selective RDN without intraoperatively verified RDN success. It is an unmet clinical need to map renal nerves, selectively denervate renal sympathetic nerves, provide readouts for the interventionalists and avoid futile RDN. We aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of renal nerve mapping/selective renal denervation (msRDN) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) and determine whether antihypertensive drug burden is reduced while office systolic BP (OSBP) is controlled to target level (＜140 mmHg).

Methods

We conducted a randomized, prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, sham-controlled trial. The study combined two efficacy endpoints at 6 months as primary outcomes: The control rate of patients with OSBP ＜140 mmHg (non-inferior outcome) and change in the composite index of antihypertensive drugs (Drug Index) in the treatment versus Sham group (superior outcome). This design avoids confounding from excess drug-taking in the Sham group. Antihypertensive drug burden was assessed by a composite index constructed as: Class N (number of classes of antihypertensive drugs) × (sum of doses). 15 hospitals in China participated in the study and 220 patients were enrolled in a 1:1 ratio (msRDN vs Sham). The key inclusion criteria included: age (18-65 years old), history of essential HTN (at least 6 months), heart rate (≥70 bpm), OSBP (≥150 mmHg and ≤180 mmHg), ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM, 24-h SBP ≥130 mmHg or daytime SBP ≥135 mmHg or nighttime SBP ≥120 mmHg), renal artery stenosis (＜50%) and renal function (eGFR ＞45 mL/min/1.73 m2). The catheter with both stimulation and ablation functions was inserted in the distal renal main artery. The RDN site (hot spot) was selected if SBP increased (≥5 mmHg) by intra-renal artery (RA) electrical stimulation; an adequate RDN was confirmed by repeated electronic stimulation if no increase in BP otherwise, a 2nd ablation was performed at the same site. At sites where there was decreased SBP (≥5 mmHg, cold spot) or no BP response (neutral spot) to stimulation, no ablation was performed. The mapping, ablation and confirmation procedure was repeated until the entire renal main artery had been tested then either treated or avoided. After msRDN, patients had to follow a predefined, vigorous drug titration regimen in order to achieve target OSBP (＜140 mmHg). Drug adherence was monitored by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis using urine. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02761811) and 5-year follow-up is ongoing.

Findings

Between July 8, 2016 and February 23, 2022, 611 patients were consented, 220 patients were enrolled in the study who received standardized antihypertensive drug treatments (at least two drugs) for at least 28 days, presented OSBP ≥150 mmHg and ≤180 mmHg and met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. In left RA and right RA, mapped sites were 8.2 (3.0) and 8.0 (2.7), hot/ablated sites were 3.7 (1.4) and 4.0 (1.6), cold spots were 2.4 (2.6) and 2.0 (2.2), neutral spots were 2.0 (2.1) and 2.0 (2.1), respectively. Hot, cold and neutral spots was 48.0%, 27.5% and 24.4% of total mapped sites, respectively. At 6 M, the Control Rate of OSBP was comparable between msRDN and Sham group (95.4% vs 92.8%, p = 0.429), achieved non-inferiority margin -10% (2.69%; 95% CI -4.11%, 9.83%, p ＜ 0.001 for non-inferiority); the change in Drug Index was significantly lower in msRDN group compared to Sham group (4.37 (6.65) vs 7.61 (10.31), p = 0.010) and superior to Sham group (-3.25; 95% CI -5.56, -0.94, p = 0.003), indicating msRDN patients need significantly fewer drugs to control OSBP ＜140 mmHg. 24-hour ambulatory SBP decreased from 146.8 (13.9) mmHg by 10.8 (14.1) mmHg, and from 149.8 (12.8) mmHg by 10.0 (14.0) mmHg in msRDN and Sham groups, respectively (p < 0.001 from Baseline; p > 0.05 between groups). Safety profiles were comparable between msRDN and Sham groups, demonstrating the safety and efficacy of renal mapping/selective RDN to treat uncontrolled HTN.

Interpretation

The msRDN therapy achieved the goals of reducing the drug burden of HTN patients and controlling OSBP <140 mmHg, with only approximately four targeted ablations per renal main artery, much lower than in previous trials.

Funding

SyMap Medical (Suzhou), LTD, Suzhou, China.

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Essential and Resistant Hypertension

Background:

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists are a second-line class of antihypertensive drugs, which have been accounted for as the optimal add-on therapy in the triple algorithm for the management of resistant hypertension.

Objectives:

To assess the effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in the treatment of patients with essential hypertension and resistant hypertension.

Method:

We conducted a meticulous review of the literature and comprehensive identification of the clinical trials assessing the efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in individuals with primary and resistant hypertension.

Results:

MRAs have been thoroughly tested in several clinical studies in relevance to blood pressure lowering effects, over the last six decades. Accumulating data observed that MRAs resulted in a significant reduction in blood pressure level in patients with resistant hypertension. In addition, spironolactone was found to beneficially affect the management of resistant hypertension.

Conclusion:

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists exert a significant antihypertensive effect. Future welldesigned randomized controlled studies are greatly needed to address crucial clinical aspects in the field.