Effects of Renal Denervation vs Sham in Resistant Hypertension After Medication Escalation: Prespecified Analysis at 6 Months of the RADIANCE-HTN TRIO Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Although early trials of endovascular renal denervation (RDN) for patients with resistant hypertension (RHTN) reported inconsistent results, ultrasound RDN (uRDN) was found to decrease blood pressure (BP) vs sham at 2 months in patients with RHTN taking stable background medications in the Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension (RADIANCE-HTN TRIO) trial.

Objectives

To report the prespecified analysis of the persistence of the BP effects and safety of uRDN vs sham at 6 months in conjunction with escalating antihypertensive medications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized, sham-controlled, clinical trial with outcome assessors and patients blinded to treatment assignment, enrolled patients from March 11, 2016, to March 13, 2020. This was an international, multicenter study conducted in the US and Europe. Participants with daytime ambulatory BP of 135/85 mm Hg or higher after 4 weeks of single-pill triple-combination treatment (angiotensin-receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, and thiazide diuretic) with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater were randomly assigned to uRDN or sham with medications unchanged through 2 months. From 2 to 5 months, if monthly home BP was 135/85 mm Hg or higher, standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment starting with aldosterone antagonists was initiated under blinding to treatment assignment.

Interventions

uRDN vs sham procedure in conjunction with added medications to target BP control.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Six-month change in medications, change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP, change in home systolic BP adjusted for baseline BP and medications, and safety.

Results

A total of 65 of 69 participants in the uRDN group and 64 of 67 participants in the sham group (mean [SD] age, 52.4 [8.3] years; 104 male [80.6%]) with a mean (SD) eGFR of 81.5 (22.8) mL/min/1.73 m2 had 6-month daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Fewer medications were added in the uRDN group (mean [SD], 0.7 [1.0] medications) vs sham (mean [SD], 1.1 [1.1] medications; P = .045) and fewer patients in the uRDN group received aldosterone antagonists at 6 months (26 of 65 [40.0%] vs 39 of 64 [60.9%]; P = .02). Despite less intensive standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, mean (SD) daytime ambulatory BP at 6 months was 138.3 (15.1) mm Hg with uRDN vs 139.0 (14.3) mm Hg with sham (additional decreases of -2.4 [16.6] vs -7.0 [16.7] mm Hg from month 2, respectively), whereas home SBP was lowered to a greater extent with uRDN by 4.3 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.5-8.1 mm Hg; P = .03) in a mixed model adjusting for baseline and number of medications. Adverse events were infrequent and similar between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, in patients with RHTN initially randomly assigned to uRDN or a sham procedure and who had persistent elevation of BP at 2 months after the procedure, standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment escalation resulted in similar BP reduction in both groups at 6 months, with fewer additional medications required in the uRDN group.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02649426.

Multicenter observational study evaluating the impact of platelet transport bags on product wastage

BACKGROUND

Platelets are the most commonly discarded blood product in Canada, with the most common cause of in-date product loss being improper storage. Transport containers to maintain temperature and extend acceptable return time may represent a method to reduce wastage. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a validated Platelet Transport Bag (PTB) on platelet wastage.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Thirty-six hospitals with the highest platelet discards were invited to participate in a before-after observational study. Hospitals were instructed to utilize a validated 4-h PTB for clinical situations where immediate transfusion was not planned. Five hospitals audited in-date platelet discards from July 2018 to November 2019 to characterize wastage causes. In-date platelet discard data 12 months before and after the start date for each site were analyzed to determine changes in wastage.

RESULTS

Of 36 hospital sites, 16 agreed to participate. Pre- and postdiscards were 277 and 301, respectively, for all sites combined. There were no significant before-after change in wastage rate (+0.05%, p = .51). Fifty discards were included in the detailed audit; the most common reasons were return to the blood bank after more than 60 min outside a PTB (n = 17, 34%) and return in a red cell cooler (n = 10, 20%).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of PTB did not improve wastage. Common causes of in-date discards were return after 1 h outside of a PTB and placement in a red cell cooler in error. Further research is required to investigate potential strategies to mitigate in-date platelet wastage.

Reducing two-unit red cell transfusions on the oncology ward: a choosing wisely initiative

Background/context

Despite Choosing Wisely recommendations for single unit red blood cell transfusion orders, ~50% of orders on the oncology ward at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) were for two units. The oncology ward at LHSC is a 60 bed tertiary care unit. In mid 2016, LHSC was 18 months into its implementation of computerised provider order entry (CPOE).

Aim/objectives

By December 2017, increase the proportion of one-unit red cell transfusion orders on the oncology ward from 50% to 80%

Measures

Outcome: % one-unit red cell transfusion orders (aggregated monthly).

Improvement/innovation/change ideas

Our initial theory was that unawareness of the guidelines (established in 2014) and subscription to the obsolete doctrine of two-unit transfusions were the primary behavioural drivers. Initial change ideas included an educational/awareness blitz including rounds presentations, memos and posters. Failure led us to revisit our hypothesis and carry out a real-time audit, where our team was notified on each two-unit transfusion. This revealed the true root cause: the overwhelming majority of two-unit transfusions could be traced back to standing orders that were entered on an admission order set. After provider engagement, we proceeded to remove all admission order sets containing two-unit transfusions.

Impact/lessons learned/results

After order set removal, our one-unit transfusion rate rose to 86% and was sustained for 17 months. We learnt two primary lessons. First that CPOE and poor order set design combined to perpetuate poor ordering practices. Second that revisiting our hypothesis and engaging in thoughtful root cause analysis that included direct observation ultimately led to an effective, sustainable solution.

Discussion/spread

Our study underscores the importance of executing root cause analysis on a microsystem level. We would expect the factors driving poor performance to be completely different on a service such as general internal medicine. Our study also highlights the potential pitfalls of CPOE and the importance of regular order set review to ensure adherence to current evidence.