Renal denervation improves exercise blood pressure: insights from a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Clin Res Cardiol. 2016;. [PMID: 26728060 DOI: 10.1007/s00392-015-0955-8]

Assessing the efficacy of renal denervation in patients with resistant arterial hypertension : Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Renal denervation (RDN) is an innovative procedure designed to regulate the renal sympathetic nervous system for the control of arterial hypertension (HTN). RDN has emerged as an alternative for patients with resistant HTN. However, the clinical efficacy of RDN remains incompletely elucidated.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of RDN with sham procedure or pharmacological treatment in patients with resistant HTN. Statistical analyses were performed using R Studio 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Heterogeneity was examined with the Cochran Q test I2 statistics. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled across trials. P values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The primary outcomes of interest were changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and serum creatinine.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs comprising 3345 patients were included in this meta-analysis, whereby 2004 (59.91%) received renal denervation and 1341 (40.09%) received pharmacological treatment or sham procedure. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 48 months. Compared to control group, RDN significantly reduced SBP (MD -3.53 mm Hg; 95% CI -5.94 to -1.12; p = 0.004; I2 = 74%) and DBP (MD -1.48 mm Hg; 95% CI -2.56 to -0.40; p = 0.007; I2 = 51%). Regarding serum creatinine (MD -2.51; 95% CI -7.90 to 2.87; p = 0.36; I2 = 40%), there was no significant difference between RDN and control groups.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with resistant HTN, RDN was associated with a reduction in SBP and DBP compared to sham procedure or pharmacological treatment.

Placebo Control and Blinding in Randomized Trials of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

Importance

Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed.

Objective

To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm.

Data Sources

Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison.

Study Selection

Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality.

Results

Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88).

Conclusions and Relevance

The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Effect of Renal Denervation for the Management of Heart Rate in Patients With Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective:

The effect of renal denervation (RDN) on heart rate (HR) in patients with hypertension had been investigated in many studies, but the results were inconsistent. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of RDN on HR control.

Methods:

Databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched until September 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs of RDN in hypertensive patients with outcome indicators, such as HR, were selected. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated for evaluating the changes in HR from baseline using fixed-effects or random-effects models. The Spearman's correlation coefficients were used to identify the relationship between the changes of HR and systolic blood pressure (SBP).

Results:

In the current meta-analysis, 681 subjects from 16 individual studies were included. This study showed that RDN could reduce office HR in patients with hypertension [WMD = −1.93 (95% CI: −3.00 to −0.85, p < 0.001)]. In addition, 24-h HR and daytime HR were decreased after RDN [WMD = −1.73 (95% CI: −3.51 to −0.31, p = 0.017) and −2.67 (95% CI: −5.02 to −0.32, p = 0.026) respectively], but nighttime HR was not significantly influenced by RDN (WMD = −2.08, 95% CI: −4.57 to 0.42, p = 0.103). We found that the reduction of HR was highly related to the decrease of SBP (r = 0.658, p < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Renal denervation could reduce office, 24-h, and daytime HR, but does not affect nighttime HR. And the effect is highly associated with blood pressure (BP) control.

Systematic Review Registration:

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021283065.

Renal denervation for resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Resistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, in the last decade renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 3 November 2020: Cochrane Hypertension's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (via CENTRAL) and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 15 eligible studies (1416 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; in the remaining studies, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding.  When compared to control, there was low-certainty evidence that renal denervation had little or no effect on the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (5 studies, 892 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95), unstable angina (3 studies, 270 participants; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.89) or hospitalisation (3 studies, 743 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.11). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, renal denervation may reduce 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (9 studies, 1045 participants; MD -5.29 mmHg, 95% CI -10.46 to -0.13), ABPM diastolic BP (8 studies, 1004 participants; MD -3.75 mmHg, 95% CI -7.10 to -0.39) and office diastolic BP (8 studies, 1049 participants; MD -4.61 mmHg, 95% CI -8.23 to -0.99). Conversely, this procedure had little or no effect on office systolic BP (10 studies, 1090 participants; MD -5.92 mmHg, 95% CI -12.94 to 1.10). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that renal denervation may not reduce serum creatinine (5 studies, 721 participants, MD 0.03 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.13) and may not increase the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (6 studies, 822 participants; MD -2.56 mL/min, 95% CI -7.53 to 2.42).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resistant hypertension, there is low-certainty evidence that renal denervation does not improve major cardiovascular outomes and renal function. Conversely, moderate-certainty evidence exists that it may improve 24h ABPM and diastolic office-measured BP. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardised procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.

Effects of different ablation points of renal denervation on the efficacy of resistant hypertension

Objective

To explore the blood pressure response to different ablation points of renal denervation (RDN) in patients with resistant hypertension

Methods

A total of 42 cases with resistant hypertension treated by RDN in our center from 2013 to 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the different ablation points of RDN: the standard treatment group (spiral ablation from near to proximal, with less than 8 points per artery) and the intensive treatment group (from near to far by spiral ablation, with at least 8 points per artery), with 21 patients in each group. The ablation parameters, including points, impedance, actual wattage, and actual temperature, were recorded intraoperatively. Renal angiography was performed again after RDN. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) images were taken for all patients at the baseline and 6 months after operation.

Results

The mean 24-h blood pressure of the standard treatment group was lower than that of the baseline (24-h systolic blood pressure decreased by 7.4 ± 10.6 mmHg and 24-h diastolic blood pressure decreased by 4.6  ± 6.1 mmHg), and the mean 24-h blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months in the intensive treatment group (24–h systolic blood pressure decreased by 27.4 ±  11.4 mmHg, P < 0.0001; 24–h diastolic blood pressure decreased by 10.9 ±  9.6 mmHg, P = 0.005). There was a positive correlation between the decrease of systolic/diastolic 24-hour mean and the number of ablation points used in the procedure. The mean value of systolic and diastolic blood pressure was positively correlated with ablation points at 24-hour (R² = 0.777 and 0.633 respectively, P < 0.01). There were no adverse events in either group after the operation and during the follow-up.

Conclusions

RDN could significantly reduce BP in patients with resistant hypertension. Our study showed that the antihypertensive effect appeared to be positively correlated with the number of ablation points.

Effects of renal denervation on coronary flow reserve and forearm dilation capacity in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. A randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Microvascular impairment is well documented in hypertension. We investigated the effect of renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) on cardiac and peripheral microvasculature in patients with treatment-resistant essential hypertension (TRH).

METHODS

A randomized, single centre, double-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial. Fifty-eight patients with TRH (ambulatory systolic BP (ASBP) ≥ 145mmHg) despite stable treatment were randomized to RDN or SHAM. RDN was performed with the unipolar Medtronic Flex catheter. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) and coronary- and forearm minimum vascular resistance (C-Rmin and F-Rmin) were determined using transthoracic Doppler echocardiography and F-Rmin with venous occlusion plethysmography at baseline and at six-months follow-up.

RESULTS

RDN was performed with 5.3±0.2 lesions in the right renal artery and 5.4±0.2 lesions in the left. Baseline ASBP was 152±2mmHg (RDN, n=29) and 154±2mmHg (SHAM, n=29). Similar reductions in MAP were seen at follow up (-3.5±2.0 vs. -3.2±1.8, P=0.92). Baseline CFR was 2.9±0.1 (RDN) and 2.4±0.1 (SHAM), with no significant change at follow-up (0.2±0.2 vs. -0.1±0.2, P=0.57). C-Rmin was 1.9±0.3 (RDN) and 2.7±0.6 (SHAM) (mmHgmin/ml pr. 100g) and did not change significantly (0.3±0.5 vs. -0.4±0.8, P=0.48). F-Rmin was 3.6±0.2 (RDN) and 3.6±0.3 (SHAM) (mmHgmin/ml pr. 100ml tissue) and unchanged at follow-up (4.2±0.4 vs. 3.8±0.2, P=0.17). Left ventricular mass index was unchanged following RDN (-4±7 (RDN) vs. 3±5 (SHAM) (g/m²) P=0.38).

CONCLUSION

The current study does not support positive effects of RDN on microvascular impairment in TRH.

Renal denervation for resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Resistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications, or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been recently proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile, and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to 17 February 2016 using relevant search terms: the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study risks of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 12 eligible studies (1149 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; one study compared a proximal ablation to a complete renal artery denervation; in the remaining, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy.None of the included trials was designed to look at hard clinical end points as primary outcomes.When compared to control, there was low quality evidence that renal denervation did not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (4 studies, 823 participants; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.72), or unstable angina (2 studies, 201 participants; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.06), and moderate quality evidence that it had no effect on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (5 studies, 797 participants; MD 0.28 mmHg, 95% CI -3.74 to 4.29), diastolic BP (4 studies, 756 participants; MD 0.93 mmHg, 95% CI -4.50 to 6.36), office measured systolic BP (6 studies, 886 participants; MD -4.08 mmHg, 95% CI -15.26 to 7.11), or diastolic BP (5 studies, 845 participants; MD -1.30 mmHg, 95% CI -7.30 to 4.69). Furthermore, low quality evidence suggested that this procedure produced no effect on either serum creatinine (3 studies, 736 participants, MD 0.01 mg/dL; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.14), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or creatinine clearance (4 studies, 837 participants; MD -2.09 mL/min, 95% CI -8.12 to 3.95). Based on low-quality evidence, renal denervation significantly increased bradycardia episodes compared to control (3 studies, 220 participants; RR 6.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 36.84), while the risk of other adverse events was comparable or not assessable.Data were sparse or absent for all cause mortality, hospitalisation, fatal cardiovascular events, quality of life, atrial fibrillation episodes, left ventricular hypertrophy, sleep apnoea severity, need for renal replacement therapy, and metabolic profile.The quality of the evidence was low for cardiovascular outcomes and adverse events and moderate for lack of effect on blood pressure and renal function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with resistant hypertension, there is low quality evidence that renal denervation does not change major cardiovascular events, and renal function. There was moderate quality evidence that it does not change blood pressure and and low quality evidence that it caused an increaseof bradycardia episodes. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardized procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.

Renal sympathetic denervation in therapy resistant hypertension - pathophysiological aspects and predictors for treatment success

Many forms of human hypertension are associated with an increased systemic sympathetic activity. Especially the renal sympathetic nervous system has been found to play a prominent role in this context. Therefore, catheter-interventional renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) has been established as a treatment for patients suffering from therapy resistant hypertension in the past decade. The initial enthusiasm for this treatment was markedly dampened by the results of the Symplicity-HTN-3 trial, although the transferability of the results into clinical practice to date appears to be questionable. In contrast to the extensive use of RDN in treating hypertensive patients within or without clinical trial settings over the past years, its effects on the complex pathophysiological mechanisms underlying therapy resistant hypertension are only partly understood and are part of ongoing research. Effects of RDN have been described on many levels in human trials: From altered systemic sympathetic activity across cardiac and metabolic alterations down to changes in renal function. Most of these changes could sustainably change long-term morbidity and mortality of the treated patients, even if blood pressure remains unchanged. Furthermore, a number of promising predictors for a successful treatment with RDN have been identified recently and further trials are ongoing. This will certainly help to improve the preselection of potential candidates for RDN and thereby optimize treatment outcomes. This review summarizes important pathophysiologic effects of renal denervation and illustrates the currently known predictors for therapy success.