Fadl M. Fadl Elmula

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

Blood pressure changes after renal denervation at 10 European expert centers

We did a subject-level meta-analysis of the changes (Δ) in blood pressure (BP) observed 3 and 6 months after renal denervation (RDN) at 10 European centers. Recruited patients (n=109; 46.8% women; mean age 58.2 years) had essential hypertension confirmed by ambulatory BP. From baseline to 6 months, treatment score declined slightly from 4.7 to 4.4 drugs per day. Systolic/diastolic BP fell by 17.6/7.1 mm Hg for office BP, and by 5.9/3.5, 6.2/3.4, and 4.4/2.5 mm Hg for 24-h, daytime and nighttime BP (P⩽0.03 for all). In 47 patients with 3- and 6-month ambulatory measurements, systolic BP did not change between these two time points (P⩾0.08). Normalization was a systolic BP of <140 mm Hg on office measurement or <130 mm Hg on 24-h monitoring and improvement was a fall of ⩾10 mm Hg, irrespective of measurement technique. For office BP, at 6 months, normalization, improvement or no decrease occurred in 22.9, 59.6 and 22.9% of patients, respectively; for 24-h BP, these proportions were 14.7, 31.2 and 34.9%, respectively. Higher baseline BP predicted greater BP fall at follow-up; higher baseline serum creatinine was associated with lower probability of improvement of 24-h BP (odds ratio for 20-μmol l−1 increase, 0.60; P=0.05) and higher probability of experiencing no BP decrease (OR, 1.66; P=0.01). In conclusion, BP responses to RDN include regression-to-the-mean and remain to be consolidated in randomized trials based on ambulatory BP monitoring. For now, RDN should remain the last resort in patients in whom all other ways to control BP failed, and it must be cautiously used in patients with renal impairment.

Renal Sympathetic Denervation in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Hypertension After Witnessed Intake of Medication Before Qualifying Ambulatory Blood Pressure

&NA;It is unknown whether the decline in blood pressure (BP) after renal denervation (RDN) is caused by denervation itself or concomitantly improved drug adherence. We aimed to investigate the BP lowering effect of RDN in true treatment-resistant hypertension by excluding patients with poor drug adherence. Patients with resistant hypertension (n=18) were referred for a thorough clinical and laboratory work-up. Treatment-resistant hypertension was defined as office systolic BP>140 mm Hg, despite maximally tolerated doses of ≥3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic. In addition, ambulatory daytime systolic BP>135 mm Hg was required after witnessed intake of antihypertensive drugs to qualify. RDN (n=6) was performed with Symplicity Catheter System. The mean office and ambulatory BPs remained unchanged at 1, 3, and 6 months in the 6 patients, whereas there was no known change in antihypertensive medication. Two patients, however, had a fall in both office and ambulatory BPs. Our findings question whether BP falls in response to RDN in patients with true treatment-resistant hypertension. Additional research must aim to verify potential BP lowering effect and identify a priori responders to RDN before this invasive method can routinely be applied to patients with drug-resistant hypertension. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01673516.

Eligibility for Renal Denervation: Experience at 11 European Expert Centers

Based on the SYMPLICITY studies and CE (Conformité Européenne) certification, renal denervation is currently applied as a novel treatment of resistant hypertension in Europe. However, information on the proportion of patients with resistant hypertension qualifying for renal denervation after a thorough work-up and treatment adjustment remains scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation and the reasons for noneligibility at 11 expert centers participating in the European Network COordinating Research on renal Denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension (ENCOReD). The analysis included 731 patients. Age averaged 61.6 years, office blood pressure at screening was 177/96 mm Hg, and the number of blood pressure–lowering drugs taken was 4.1. Specialists referred 75.6% of patients. The proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation according to the SYMPLICITY HTN-2 criteria and each center’s criteria was 42.5% (95% confidence interval, 38.0%–47.0%) and 39.7% (36.2%–43.2%), respectively. The main reasons of noneligibility were normalization of blood pressure after treatment adjustment (46.9%), unsuitable renal arterial anatomy (17.0%), and previously undetected secondary causes of hypertension (11.1%). In conclusion, after careful screening and treatment adjustment at hypertension expert centers, only ≈40% of patients referred for renal denervation, mostly by specialists, were eligible for the procedure. The most frequent cause of ineligibility (approximately half of cases) was blood pressure normalization after treatment adjustment by a hypertension specialist. Our findings highlight that hypertension centers with a record in clinical experience and research should remain the gatekeepers before renal denervation is considered.Based on the SYMPLICITY studies and CE (Conformite Europeenne) certification, renal denervation is currently applied as a novel treatment of resistant hypertension in Europe. However, information on the proportion of patients with resistant hypertension qualifying for renal denervation after a thorough work-up and treatment adjustment remains scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation and the reasons for noneligibility at 11 expert centers participating in the European Network COordinating Research on renal Denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension (ENCOReD). The analysis included 731 patients. Age averaged 61.6 years, office blood pressure at screening was 177/96 mm Hg, and the number of blood pressure–lowering drugs taken was 4.1. Specialists referred 75.6% of patients. The proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation according to the SYMPLICITY HTN-2 criteria and each center’s criteria was 42.5% (95% confidence interval, 38.0%–47.0%) and 39.7% (36.2%–43.2%), respectively. The main reasons of noneligibility were normalization of blood pressure after treatment adjustment (46.9%), unsuitable renal arterial anatomy (17.0%), and previously undetected secondary causes of hypertension (11.1%). In conclusion, after careful screening and treatment adjustment at hypertension expert centers, only ≈40% of patients referred for renal denervation, mostly by specialists, were eligible for the procedure. The most frequent cause of ineligibility (approximately half of cases) was blood pressure normalization after treatment adjustment by a hypertension specialist. Our findings highlight that hypertension centers with a record in clinical experience and research should remain the gatekeepers before renal denervation is considered. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-32}

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.

Hyperresponders vs. nonresponder patients after renal denervation: do they differ?

Background: Blood pressure (BP) response after renal denervation (RDN) is highly variable. Besides baseline BP, no reliable predictors of response have been consistently identified. The differences between patients showing a major BP decrease after RDN vs. nonresponders have not been studied so far. Aim and methods: We identified extreme BP responders (first quintile) and nonresponders (fifth quintile) to RDN defined according to office or 24-h ambulatory BP in the European Network COordinating research on Renal Denervation database (n = 109) and compared the baseline characteristics and BP changes 6 months after RDN in both subsets. Results: In extreme responders defined according to ambulatory BP, baseline BP and BP changes 6 months after RDN were similar for office and out-of-the office BP. In contrast, extreme responders defined according to office BP were characterized by a huge white-coat effect at baseline, with dramatic shrinkage at 6 months. Compared with nonresponders, extreme responders defined according to office BP were more frequently women, had higher baseline office – but not ambulatory – BP, and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In contrast, when considering ambulatory BP decrease to define extreme responders and nonresponders, the single relevant difference between both subsets was baseline ambulatory BP. Conclusion: This study suggests a major overestimation of BP response after RDN in extreme responders defined according to office, but not ambulatory BP. The association of lower eGFR with poor response to RDN is consistent with our previous analysis. The increased proportion of women in extreme responders may reflect sex differences in drug adherence.

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 denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension: a reappraisal

The Symplicity HTN-1 and 2 studies proposed renal denervation (RDN) as an effective and safe approach to treat patients with resistant hypertension, and were followed by an unprecedented wave of enthusiasm. The announcement that Symplicity HTN-3 failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint put an abrupt stop to these overoptimistic expectations. The use of a sound methodology was enough to see the typical 25-30mmHg systolic blood pressure decrease observed after RDN melt down to <3mmHg. RDN certainly deserves further investigation but is not ready for wide clinical application. For the time being, physicians should focus on improvement of drug adherence and skilful drug treatment adjustment, which allow reaching blood pressure target in the large majority of hypertensive patients.

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.

A randomized and controlled study of noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring as a guide to drug treatment of uncontrolled hypertensive patients.

Background: In the BEtter control of BP in hypertensive pAtients monitored Using the HOTMAN sYstem study, we investigated whether utilizing noninvasive monitoring of hemodynamic parameters combined with a drug selection algorithm (integrated hemodynamic management – IHM) compared with conventional drug selection may improve uncontrolled hypertension in European Hypertension Excellence centers. Method: Uncontrolled (office SBP >140 mmHg and ambulatory daytime SBP >135 mmHg while taking ≥2 antihypertensive drugs) essential hypertensive patients were referred to five European Hypertension Excellence centers and, if eligible, were randomized to IHM-guided (n = 83) vs. conventional (control, n = 84) treatment adjustment in an investigator-initiated multicenter prospective randomized parallel groups controlled study. Results: The average number of antihypertensive drugs increased from 3.1 to 4.1 in both groups and differed only in a rise of the use of diuretics in the IHM groups (from 13 to 31%). Daytime SBP, defined as the primary endpoint, decreased markedly and to the same extent from baseline to 6 months in IHM (–15.8 ± 14.8 mmHg) and control (–15.4 ± 14.5 mmHg) groups (P = 0.87), with a similar behavior of office SBP (no between group differences, P = 0.18). Average number of adverse events was significantly lower in IHM than in controls (P = 0.008) but of the more general type and not necessarily related to drug treatment. Conclusion: Thus, noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring associated with a drug selection algorithm induced similar reductions in ambulatory daytime and office SBP compared with conventional drug selection in uncontrolled hypertensive patients referred to European Hypertension Excellence centers. Clinical Trial Registration – URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01482364