Anne Cecilie K. Larstorp

Adjusted Drug Treatment Is Superior to Renal Sympathetic Denervation in Patients With True Treatment-Resistant Hypertension

&NA; We aimed to investigate for the first time the blood pressure (BP)–lowering effect of renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) versus clinically adjusted drug treatment in true treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) after excluding patients with confounding poor drug adherence. Patients with apparent TRH (n=65) were referred for RDN, and those with secondary and spurious hypertension (n=26) were excluded. TRH was defined as office systolic BP (SBP) >140 mm Hg, despite maximally tolerated doses of ≥3 antihypertensive drugs including a diuretic. In addition, ambulatory daytime SBP >135 mm Hg after witnessed intake of antihypertensive drugs was required, after which 20 patients had normalized BP and were excluded. Patients with true TRH were randomized and underwent RDN (n=9) performed with Symplicity Catheter System versus clinically adjusted drug treatment (n=10). The study was stopped early for ethical reasons because RDN had uncertain BP-lowering effect. Office SBP and diastolic BP in the drug-adjusted group changed from 160±14/88±13 mm Hg (±SD) at baseline to 132±10/77±8 mm Hg at 6 months (P<0.0005 and P=0.02, SBP and diastolic BP, respectively) and in the RDN group from 156±13/91±15 to 148±7/89±8 mm Hg (P=0.42 and P=0.48, SBP and diastolic BP, respectively). SBP and diastolic BP were significantly lower in the drug-adjusted group at 6 months (P=0.002 and P=0.004, respectively), and absolute changes in SBP were larger in the drug-adjusted group (P=0.008). Ambulatory BPs changed in parallel to office BPs. Our data suggest that adjusted drug treatment has superior BP lowering effects compared with RDN in patients with true TRH. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01673516

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of renal denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension

Abstract Objective. The blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of renal sympathetic nervous denervation (RDN) in resistant hypertension (rHT) shows large variation among studies. Methods. We meta-analyzed summary statistics of randomized clinical trials on RDN in rHT. For continuous outcomes, we assessed heterogeneity by Cochrans Q test and used random-effect models weighted for the inverse of the variance. We assessed safety by assessing the risk of major adverse events from stratified contingency tables. Results. Of 5652 patients screened in seven trials, 985 (17.4%) qualified and were randomized to control (n = 397) or RDN with SYMPLICITY™ catheters (n = 588). Follow-up was 6 months. In both control and RDN patients, antihypertensive treatment was continued or optimized. At enrolment, age averaged 58.1 years, systolic/diastolic office and 24 h BP 168.5/93.3 mmHg and 151.8/86.1 mmHg, respectively, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 79.3 ml/min/1.73 m². For BP outcomes, there was heterogeneity among trials. Pooled effects (control minus RDN) were −4.9/−3.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval, −20.9 to 11.1/−8.9 to 1.9) for office BP, −2.8/−1.5 mmHg (−6.5 to 0.8/−3.3 to 0.4) for 24 h BP and 0.81 ml/min/1.73 m² (−1.69 to 3.30) for eGFR. Removing one trial at a time produced confirmatory results. Adverse events occurred in 7.4% and 9.9% of control and RDN patients, respectively (p = 0.24). Conclusion. In selected rHT patients maintained on antihypertensive drugs, RDN with the SYMPLICITY systems does not significantly decrease BP but is safe. Future trials with next-generation catheters should aim at identifying responders in patients with evidence of sympathetic nervous overactivity.

Association of Pulse Pressure With New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Hypertension and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint (LIFE) Reduction in Hypertension Study

Previous studies have found pulse pressure (PP), a marker of arterial stiffness, to be an independent predictor of atrial fibrillation (AF) in general and hypertensive populations. We examined whether PP predicted new-onset AF in comparison with other blood pressure components in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study, a double-blind, randomized (losartan versus atenolol), parallel-group study, including 9193 patients with hypertension and electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy. In 8810 patients with neither a history of AF nor AF at baseline, Minnesota coding of electrocardiograms confirmed new-onset AF in 353 patients (4.0%) during mean 4.9 years of follow-up. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, baseline and in-treatment PP and baseline and in-treatment systolic blood pressure predicted new-onset AF, independent of baseline age, height, weight, and Framingham Risk Score; sex, race, and treatment allocation; and in-treatment heart rate and Cornell product. PP was the strongest single blood pressure predictor of new-onset AF determined by the decrease in the −2 Log likelihood statistic, in comparison with systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure. When evaluated in the same model, the predictive effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressures together was similar to that of PP. In this population of patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, PP was the strongest single blood pressure predictor of new-onset AF, independent of other risk factors.Previous studies have found pulse pressure (PP), a marker of arterial stiffness, to be an independent predictor of atrial fibrillation (AF) in general and hypertensive populations. We examined whether PP predicted new-onset AF in comparison with other blood pressure components in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study, a double-blind, randomized (losartan versus atenolol), parallel-group study, including 9193 patients with hypertension and electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy. In 8810 patients with neither a history of AF nor AF at baseline, Minnesota coding of electrocardiograms confirmed new-onset AF in 353 patients (4.0%) during mean 4.9 years of follow-up. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, baseline and in-treatment PP and baseline and in-treatment systolic blood pressure predicted new-onset AF, independent of baseline age, height, weight, and Framingham Risk Score; sex, race, and treatment allocation; and in-treatment heart rate and Cornell product. PP was the strongest single blood pressure predictor of new-onset AF determined by the decrease in the −2 Log likelihood statistic, in comparison with systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure. When evaluated in the same model, the predictive effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressures together was similar to that of PP. In this population of patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, PP was the strongest single blood pressure predictor of new-onset AF, independent of other risk factors. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-48}

Serum uric acid is associated with new-onset diabetes in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy : The LIFE study

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether serum uric acid (SUA) is associated with development of new-onset diabetes (NOD) in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). The aim of the present investigation was to test the hypothesis that SUA predicts development of NOD in these patients. METHODS In the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, a double-masked, parallel-group design, 9,193 patients with hypertension and electrocardiographic LVH were randomized to losartan- or atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment and followed for a mean of 4.9 years. At baseline, 7,489 patients with available SUA measurements did not have diabetes mellitus and were thus at risk of its development during the study. We used Cox regression analyses to investigate whether SUA predicted development of NOD. RESULTS NOD developed in 522 of 7,489 patients. The association between baseline SUA and development of NOD was significant (hazard ratio (HR) 1.29 per s.d. (1.3 mg/dl), 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.42, P < 0.001) after adjustment for treatment with losartan vs. atenolol, baseline serum glucose, urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, estimated glomerular filtration rate and Framingham risk score, time-varying systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and time-varying LVH by Cornell voltage-duration product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage. In parallel analyses, baseline quartiles of SUA were significantly associated with increasing NOD (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18-1.40, P < 0.001). Time-varying SUA was also associated with NOD (HR 1.10 per s.d. [1.3 mg/dl], 95% CI 1.02-1.19, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION Our analysis suggests that SUA is an independent risk marker for NOD in hypertensive patients with LVH.

Regression of ECG-LVH is associated with lower risk of new-onset heart failure and mortality in patients with isolated systolic hypertension; The LIFE study

BACKGROUND Hypertension and electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (ECG-LVH) are strong predictors of heart failure (HF). It is unclear whether regression of ECG-LVH during treatment predicts less new-onset HF in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). METHODS A total of 9,027 patients with hypertension and ECG-LVH and without a history of HF were randomized to losartan- or atenolol-based treatment in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study. Incident HF and the combined endpoint of HF and death were evaluated in 1,280 ISH patients and as compared with 7,747 patients with systolic-diastolic hypertension or isolated diastolic hypertension (non-ISH) during mean 4.8 ± 0.9 years follow-up. RESULTS New-onset HF and HF or death occurred in 57 (4.5%) and 179 (14.0%) ISH patients and 220 (2.8%) and 787 (10.2%) non-ISH patients. In Cox regression analyses adjusting for treatment and HF risk factors, time-varying Cornell product was associated with lower risk of new-onset HF in ISH (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.94, P = 0.008, per 1,050 mm × ms (1 SD) lower Cornell product) and in non-ISH (adjusted HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61-0.72, P < 0.001, per SD lower Cornell product). In parallel analyses, time-varying Cornell product was associated with lower risk of new-onset HF or death in ISH and non-ISH (adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.93, P = 0.001 and 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.87, P < 0.001, per SD lower Cornell product). CONCLUSIONS Regression of time-varying Cornell product was associated with similar reductions in risk of new-onset HF and the combined endpoint of HF or death in ISH and non-ISH patients.

Effect of Lower On-Treatment Systolic Blood Pressure on the Risk of Atrial Fibrillation in Hypertensive Patients

Abstract—There is a well-established association between hypertension and atrial fibrillation (AF); indeed, even upper normal systolic blood pressures (SBP) are long-term predictors of incident AF. These findings suggest that more aggressive BP control may reduce the risk of new AF. However, whether lower achieved SBP is associated with a lower incidence of AF remains unclear. The risk of new-onset AF was examined in relation to last in-treatment SBP before AF diagnosis or last in-study measurement in the absence of new AF in 8831 hypertensive patients with ECG left ventricular hypertrophy with no history of AF, in sinus rhythm on their baseline ECG, randomly assigned to losartan- or atenolol-based treatment. Patients with in-treatment SBP ⩽130 mm Hg (lowest quintile at last measurement) and SBP between 131 and 141 mm Hg were compared with patients with in-treatment SBP ≥142 mm Hg (median SBP at last measurement). During follow-up of 4.6±1.1 years, new-onset AF was diagnosed in 701 patients (7.9%). In multivariate Cox analyses, compared with in-treatment SBP ≥142 mm Hg, in-treatment SBP ⩽130 mm Hg entered as a time-varying covariate was associated with a 40% lower risk (95% confidence interval, 18%–55%) and in-treatment SBP of 131 to 141 mm Hg with a 24% lower risk (95% confidence interval, 7%–38%) of new AF. Thus, achieved SBP ⩽130 mm Hg is associated with a lower risk of new-onset AF in hypertensive patients with ECG left ventricular hypertrophy. Further study is needed to determine whether targeting hypertensive patients without AF to lower SBP goals can reduce the burden of new AF in this high-risk population. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00338260.

Adherence to medication and drug monitoring in apparent treatment-resistant hypertension

Abstract Poor drug adherence is one of the main reasons for the failure to achieve treatment targets in hypertensive patients. In patients who receive pharmacological treatment, assessment of drug adherence is of the utmost importance. The aim of this review is to present an update of the methods available to reveal and monitor non-adherence in patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. Methods for monitoring adherence are divided into indirect and direct methods. The indirect methods are mainly based on self-reported adherence and can easily be manipulated by the patient. Directly observed therapy and therapeutic drug monitoring are examples of direct methods. There are limitations and advantages to all of the methods, and because of the patient’s ability to manipulate the outcome of indirect methods, direct methods should be preferred. Therapeutic drug monitoring and directly observed therapy with subsequent ambulatory blood pressure measurement are considered to be reliable methods and should be used more in the routine assessment of patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension.

Changes in electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy and risk of major cardiovascular events in isolated systolic hypertension: The LIFE study

The predictive value of changes in the severity of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (ECG-LVH) during antihypertensive therapy remains unclear in isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). In a Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension substudy, we included 1320 patients aged 54–83 years with systolic blood pressure (BP) of 160–200 mm Hg, diastolic BP <90 mm Hg and ECG-LVH by Cornell voltage-duration product and/or Sokolow–Lyon voltage criteria, randomized to losartan- or atenolol-based treatment with a mean follow-up of 4.8 years. The composite end point of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke occurred in 179 (13.6%) patients. In Cox regression models controlling for treatment, Framingham risk score, as well as baseline and in-treatment BP, less severe in-treatment ECG-LVH by Cornell product and Sokolow–Lyon voltage was associated with 17 and 25% risk reduction for the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (95% CI:) 0.75–0.92, P=0.001 per 1050 mm × ms (1 s.d.) lower Cornell product; and HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65–0.87, P<0.001 per 10.5 mm (1 s.d.) lower Sokolow–Lyon voltage). In parallel analyses, lower Cornell product and Sokolow–Lyon voltage were associated with lower risks of cardiovascular mortality and MI, and lower Sokolow–Lyon voltage with lower risk of stroke. Lower Cornell product and Sokolow–Lyon voltage during antihypertensive therapy are associated with lower likelihoods of cardiovascular events in patients with ISH.

Sham or no sham control: that is the question in trials of renal denervation for resistant hypertension. A systematic meta-analysis

Abstract Background: Studies of renal denervation (RDN) in patients with apparent treatment resistant hypertension have been hampered by a number of patient and physician related confounders on blood pressure (BP) including poor drug adherence. It remains uncertain whether RDN lowers BP. We aimed to investigate whether the use of sham control is essential in RDN studies or whether systematic use of 24-hour ambulatory BP provides enough information thereby making an invasive sham control redundant. Methods: We meta-analyzed randomized controlled trials of the BP response to RDN on top of continued or optimized antihypertensive drugs in patients with resistant hypertension. On top of the randomized trials reviewed earlier, we additionally included three studies, one conducted in Spain (24 patients, RDN vs. spironolactone), one conducted in Denmark (69 patients, sham controlled) and one conducted in Netherlands (139 patients, RDN vs. continued treatment). We analyzed 24-hour ambulatory BP in 3 sham controlled studies vs. 7 no sham controlled studies. Results: The updated meta-analysis of 10 studies showed 3.6 mmHg (p = .45) and 1.0 mmHg (p = .54) reductions in office and in 24-hour systolic BP, respectively. Meta-analysis of 24-hour systolic BP in the 3 sham-controlled studies showed a reduction of 2.18 mmHg (95% confidence intervals (CIs) −4.70 to 0.33 mmHg, n = 396 vs. 230, p = .07). For the 7 no sham controlled studies there was no difference in 24-hour systolic BP (+0.38 mmHg; 95% CIs −5.29 to 6.04 mmHg, n = 215 vs. 245, p = .90). The test for sub-group heterogeneity showed no significant interaction (p = .69). Removing one trial at a time produced confirmatory results. Conclusion: The overall meta-analysis of 10 randomized and controlled studies showed no significant effect on BP of RDN in resistant hypertension. Moreover, our analysis does not support the use of sham control but rather suggests extensive use of 24-hour ambulatory BP in studies of RDN in resistant hypertension

Renal sympathetic denervation after Symplicity HTN-3 and therapeutic drug monitoring in severe hypertension

Renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) has been and is still proposed as a new treatment modality in patients with apparently treatment resistant hypertension (TRH), a condition defined as persistent blood pressure elevation despite prescription of at least 3 antihypertensive drugs including a diuretic. However, the large fall in blood pressure after RDN reported in the first randomized study, Symplicity HTN-2 and multiple observational studies has not been confirmed in five subsequent prospective randomized studies and may be largely explained by non-specific effects such as improvement of drug adherence in initially poorly adherent patients (the Hawthorne effect), placebo effect and regression to the mean. The overall blood-pressure lowering effect of RDN seems rather limited and the characteristics of true responders are largely unknown. Accordingly, RDN is not ready for clinical practice. In most patients with apparently TRH, drug monitoring and improvement of drug adherence may prove more effective and cost-beneficial to achieve blood pressure control. In the meantime, research should aim at identifying characteristics of those patients with truly TRH who may respond to RDN.