Thomas Zeller

Renal sympathetic denervation in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension (The Symplicity HTN-2 Trial): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Activation of renal sympathetic nerves is key to pathogenesis of essential hypertension. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of catheter-based renal denervation for reduction of blood pressure in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. METHODS In this multicentre, prospective, randomised trial, patients who had a baseline systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or more (≥150 mm Hg for patients with type 2 diabetes), despite taking three or more antihypertensive drugs, were randomly allocated in a one-to-one ratio to undergo renal denervation with previous treatment or to maintain previous treatment alone (control group) at 24 participating centres. Randomisation was done with sealed envelopes. Data analysers were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary effectiveness endpoint was change in seated office-based measurement of systolic blood pressure at 6 months. Primary analysis included all patients remaining in follow-up at 6 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00888433. FINDINGS 106 (56%) of 190 patients screened for eligibility were randomly allocated to renal denervation (n=52) or control (n=54) groups between June 9, 2009, and Jan 15, 2010. 49 (94%) of 52 patients who underwent renal denervation and 51 (94%) of 54 controls were assessed for the primary endpoint at 6 months. Office-based blood pressure measurements in the renal denervation group reduced by 32/12 mm Hg (SD 23/11, baseline of 178/96 mm Hg, p<0·0001), whereas they did not differ from baseline in the control group (change of 1/0 mm Hg [21/10], baseline of 178/97 mm Hg, p=0·77 systolic and p=0·83 diastolic). Between-group differences in blood pressure at 6 months were 33/11 mm Hg (p<0·0001). At 6 months, 41 (84%) of 49 patients who underwent renal denervation had a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more, compared with 18 (35%) of 51 controls (p<0·0001). We noted no serious procedure-related or device-related complications and occurrence of adverse events did not differ between groups; one patient who had renal denervation had possible progression of an underlying atherosclerotic lesion, but required no treatment. INTERPRETATION Catheter-based renal denervation can safely be used to substantially reduce blood pressure in treatment-resistant hypertensive patients. FUNDING Ardian.

Nitinol Stent Implantation Versus Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty in Superficial Femoral Artery Lesions up to 10 cm in Length: The Femoral Artery Stenting Trial (FAST)

Background— Endoluminal treatment of superficial femoral artery lesions is a matter of controversy. The present study was designed to investigate the impact of nitinol stenting of superficial femoral artery lesions with a maximum length of 10 cm on restenosis and clinical outcomes at 1 year. Methods and Results— Two hundred forty-four patients (168 men; 66±9 years) with a single superficial femoral artery lesion and chronic limb ischemia were randomized to implantation of a single Bard Luminexx 3 stent (123 patients) or stand-alone percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) (121 patients). Mean lesion length was 45 mm. Technical success (residual stenosis <50% for PTA, <30% for stenting) was achieved in 96 patients assigned to PTA (79%) and 117 patients assigned to stenting (95%); 13 PTA group patients (11%) “crossed over” to stenting. At 1 year, the primary end point of ultrasound-assessed binary restenosis was reached in 39 of 101 PTA group patients (38.6%) and 32 of 101 stent group patients (31.7%; absolute treatment difference, −6.9%; 95% CI, −19.7% to 6.2%; P=0.377). Target lesion revascularization rates at 1 year were 18.3% and 14.9%, respectively (absolute treatment difference, −3.3%; 95% CI, −13.0% to 6.4%; P=0.595). No statistically significant difference between treatment groups was observed at 12 months in the improvement by at least 1 Rutherford category of peripheral arterial disease. Conclusions— In the present study of patients with short superficial femoral artery lesions, the hypothesized absolute difference of 20% in binary restenosis at 1 year between the implantation of a single Luminexx nitinol stent and stand-alone PTA could not be demonstrated. A smaller difference requiring a larger trial might have been missed.

Drug-Eluting and Bare Nitinol Stents for the Treatment of Atherosclerotic Lesions in the Superficial Femoral Artery: Long-Term Results from the SIROCCO Trial

Purpose: To review clinical outcomes of patients with chronic limb ischemia and TASC type C lesions treated with sirolimus-eluting versus bare SMART nitinol self-expanding stents. Methods: Data were obtained from a randomized, multicenter, double-blinded study conducted in 2 phases. All 93 patients had chronic limb ischemia and superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusions or stenoses (average lesion length 8.3 cm). In total, 47 patients (31 men; mean age 66.3±9.1 years, range 50–84) received the sirolimus-eluting SMART stent and 46 patients (36 men; mean age 65.9 ± 10.8 years, range 38–83) received a bare SMART nitinol stent. Both groups were followed for a mean 24 months. Results: Both the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stents were effective in revascularizing the diseased SFA and in sustaining freedom from restenosis. For both types of stents, improvements in ankle-brachial indices (ABI) and symptoms of claudication were maintained over 24 months (median 24-month ABI 0.96 for the sirolimus group versus 0.87 for the bare stent group, p>0.05). At 24 months, the restenosis rate in the sirolimus group was 22.9% versus 21.1% in the bare stent group (p>0.05). The cumulative in-stent restenosis rates according to duplex ultrasound were 4.7%, 9.0%, 15.6%, and 21.9%, respectively, at 6, 9, 18, and 24 months; the rates did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. The TLR rate for the sirolimus group was 6% and for the bare stent group 13%; the TVR rates were somewhat higher: 13% and 22%, respectively. Mortality rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stent are effective, safe, and free from restenosis in a majority of patients for up to 24 months. Because the restenosis rate in the bare stent group is unexpectedly low, no significant difference could be found between the sirolimus-eluting and the bare SMART stents.

Sirolimus-Eluting versus Bare Nitinol Stent for Obstructive Superficial Femoral Artery Disease: The SIROCCO II Trial

PURPOSE To investigate further the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting S. M.A.R.T. Nitinol Self-expanding Stent by comparison with a bare stent in superficial femoral artery (SFA) obstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind study involved 57 patients (29 in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and 28 in the bare stent group) with chronic limb ischemia and SFA occlusions (66.7%) or stenoses (average lesion length, 81.5 mm +/- 41.2). Stent implantation followed standard interventional techniques and a maximum of two stents could be implanted. The primary endpoint was the in-stent mean lumen diameter at 6 months as determined by quantitative angiography. RESULTS Both stent types were effective in revascularizing the diseased SFA and allowing sustained patency for at least 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the in-stent mean lumen diameter at 6 months (4.94 mm +/- 0.69 and 4.76 mm +/- 0.54 mm for sirolimus-eluting and bare stent groups, respectively; P = .31). Although the diameter of the target lesion tended to be larger and percent stenosis tended to be lower with the sirolimus-eluting stent, there were no statistically significant differences between treatments in terms of any of the variables. The mean late loss values were 0.38 mm +/- 0.64 and 0.68 mm +/- 0.97 for the sirolimus-eluting stent group and the bare stent group, respectively (P = .20). The binary restenosis rates, with a cutoff of 50% at 6 months, were zero in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and 7.7% in the bare stent group (P = .49). Clinical outcomes matched angiographic outcomes with improvements in ankle-brachial index and symptoms of claudication. There was no significant difference between treatments in terms of adverse events. CONCLUSION Although there is a trend for greater efficacy in the sirolimus-eluting stent group, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the variables.

Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents Show Superiority to Balloon Angioplasty and Bare Metal Stents in Femoropopliteal Disease Twelve-Month Zilver PTX Randomized Study Results

Background— Sustained benefits of drug-eluting stents in femoropopliteal arteries have not been demonstrated. This prospective, multinational, randomized study was designed to compare the 12-month safety and effectiveness of a polymer-free, paclitaxel-coated nitinol drug-eluting stent (DES) with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and provisional bare metal stent (BMS) placement in patients with femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease. Methods and Results— Patients were randomly assigned to primary DES implantation (n=236) or PTA (n=238). Demographics and lesion characteristics were similar between groups (eg, average lesion length, approximately 65±40 mm). One hundred twenty patients had acute PTA failure and underwent secondary random assignment to provisional DES (n=61) or BMS (n=59). Primary end points were the 12-month rates of event-free survival and patency in the primary DES and PTA groups. Compared with the PTA group, the primary DES group exhibited superior 12-month event-free survival (90.4% versus 82.6%; P=0.004) and primary patency (83.1% versus 32.8%; P<0.001), satisfying the primary hypotheses. In the secondary evaluations, (1) the primary DES group exhibited superior clinical benefit compared with the PTA group (88.3% versus 75.8%; P<0.001), (2) the provisional DES group exhibited superior primary patency (89.9% versus 73.0%; P=0.01) and superior clinical benefit (90.5% and 72.3%, P=0.009) compared with the provisional BMS group, and (3) the stent fracture rate (both DES and BMS) was 0.9% (4/457). Conclusions— Femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease treatment with the paclitaxel-eluting stent was associated with superior 12-month outcomes compared with PTA and provisional BMS placement. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00120406.

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Changes after Renal Sympathetic Denervation in Patients with Resistant Hypertension

Background— Catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) reduces office blood pressure (BP) in patients with resistant hypertension according to office BP. Less is known about the effect of RDN on 24-hour BP measured by ambulatory BP monitoring and correlates of response in individuals with true or pseudoresistant hypertension. Methods and Results— A total of 346 uncontrolled hypertensive patients, separated according to daytime ambulatory BP monitoring into 303 with true resistant (office systolic BP [SBP] 172.2±22 mm Hg; 24-hour SBP 154±16.2 mm Hg) and 43 with pseudoresistant hypertension (office SBP 161.2±20.3 mm Hg; 24-hour SBP 121.1±19.6 mm Hg), from 10 centers were studied. At 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up, office SBP was reduced by 21.5/23.7/27.3 mm Hg, office diastolic BP by 8.9/9.5/11.7 mm Hg, and pulse pressure by 13.4/14.2/14.9 mm Hg (n=245/236/90; P for all <0.001), respectively. In patients with true treatment resistance there was a significant reduction with RDN in 24-hour SBP (−10.1/−10.2/−11.7 mm Hg, P<0.001), diastolic BP (−4.8/−4.9/−7.4 mm Hg, P<0.001), maximum SBP (−11.7/−10.0/−6.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) and minimum SBP (−6.0/−9.4/−13.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. There was no effect on ambulatory BP monitoring in pseudoresistant patients, whereas office BP was reduced to a similar extent. RDN was equally effective in reducing BP in different subgroups of patients. Office SBP at baseline was the only independent correlate of BP response. Conclusions— RDN reduced office BP and improved relevant aspects of ambulatory BP monitoring, commonly linked to high cardiovascular risk, in patients with true-treatment resistant hypertension, whereas it only affected office BP in pseudoresistant hypertension. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00664638 and NCT00888433.

Expert consensus document from the European Society of Cardiology on catheter-based renal denervation

Hypertension is highly prevalent and one of the most frequent chronic diseases worldwide.1 It has been suggested that over the next two decades up to 50% of the adult population will be diagnosed with hypertension, according to the standard guideline definitions.1 Despite the availability of many safe and effective antihypertensive drugs, control rates to target blood pressure remain low.2 Approximately 5–10% of all patients with high blood pressure are resistant to drug treatment defined as blood pressure >140/90 mmHg, >130–139/80–85 mmHg in diabetes mellitus or >130/80 mmHg in chronic kidney disease in the presence of three or more antihypertensives of different classes, including a diuretic, at maximal or the highest tolerated dose.3 Resistant hypertension is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events.4 Current non-invasive therapeutic strategies are mainly based on lifestyle interventions and pharmacological treatment, including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.3 Up until recently treatment options for patients with resistant hypertension were limited. Nowadays catheter-based renal denervation offers a new approach targeting the renal sympathetic nerves. Indeed, the technique has been shown to reduce sympathetic nerve activity,5 norepinephrine spillover6 as well as blood pressure7–9 in patients with resistant hypertension. Several national10–13 and international14 consensus documents from different societies have recently been published, with different degrees of involvement of interventionalists. This expert consensus document summarizes the view of an expert panel of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions to provide guidance regarding …

Drug-coated balloon versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for the treatment of superficial femoral and popliteal peripheral artery disease: 12-month results from the IN.PACT SFA randomized trial.

Background— Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have shown promise in improving the outcomes for patients with peripheral artery disease. We compared a paclitaxel-coated balloon with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for the treatment of symptomatic superficial femoral and popliteal artery disease. Methods and Results— The IN.PACT SFA Trial is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, randomized trial in which 331 patients with intermittent claudication or ischemic rest pain attributable to superficial femoral and popliteal peripheral artery disease were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with DCB or PTA. The primary efficacy end point was primary patency, defined as freedom from restenosis or clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Mean lesion length and the percentage of total occlusions for the DCB and PTA arms were 8.94±4.89 and 8.81±5.12 cm (P=0.82) and 25.8% and 19.5% (P=0.22), respectively. DCB resulted in higher primary patency versus PTA (82.2% versus 52.4%; P<0.001). The rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization was 2.4% in the DCB arm in comparison with 20.6% in the PTA arm (P<0.001). There was a low rate of vessel thrombosis in both arms (1.4% after DCB and 3.7% after PTA [P=0.10]). There were no device- or procedure-related deaths and no major amputations. Conclusions— In this prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, DCB was superior to PTA and had a favorable safety profile for the treatment of patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifiers: NCT01175850 and NCT01566461.

Predictors of Improved Renal Function After Percutaneous Stent-Supported Angioplasty of Severe Atherosclerotic Ostial Renal Artery Stenosis

Background—Percutaneous stent-supported angioplasty is a treatment option for atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis. Improvement of renal function by such intervention, however, is controversial and thought to be limited to specific subsets, such as nondiabetic patients and bilateral stenoses. In this prospective study, we investigated predictors for improvement of renal function and blood pressure after renal artery stent placement. Methods and Results—The study included 215 consecutive patients with ostial renal artery stenosis of ≥70% diameter stenosis undergoing stent-supported angioplasty. The primary end point was decrease in serum creatinine concentration at 1 year; the secondary end point, decrease in average mean arterial blood pressure assessed by 24-hour monitoring. One-year follow-up was complete in 191 surviving patients. In 52% (99/191) of the patients, serum creatinine concentration decreased during 1-year follow-up. Median serum creatinine concentration dropped significantly from 1.21 mg/dL (quartiles: 0.92, 1.60 mg/dL) at baseline to 1.10 mg/dL (quartiles: 0.88, 1.50 mg/dL) at 1 year (P =0.047). On average, mean arterial blood pressure decreased significantly, from 102±12 mm Hg (mean±SD) at baseline to 92±10 mm Hg at 1 year (P <0.001). Significant independent predictors of improved renal function were baseline serum creatinine (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.58 [1.35 to 4.94], P =0.004) and left ventricular function (OR 1.51 [1.04 to 2.21], P =0.032). Female sex, high baseline mean blood pressure, and normal renal parenchymal thickness were independent predictors for decreased mean blood pressure. Conclusions—Stent-supported angioplasty for severe ostial renal artery stenosis improves renal function and blood pressure in a broader spectrum of patients than previously thought.

The LEVANT I (Lutonix Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Prevention of Femoropopliteal Restenosis) Trial for Femoropopliteal Revascularization : First-in-Human Randomized Trial of Low-Dose Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Uncoated Balloon Angioplasty

OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Lutonix drug-coated balloon (DCB) coated with 2 μg/mm(2)paclitaxel and a polysorbate/sorbitol carrier for treatment of femoropopliteal lesions. BACKGROUND Percutaneous treatment of peripheral vascular disease is associated with a high recurrence. Paclitaxel-coated balloons at 3 μg/mm(2) formulated differently have shown promising results with reduced restenosis. Methods Subjects at 9 centers with Rutherford class 2 to 5 femoropopliteal lesions were randomized between June 2009 and December 2009 to treatment with Lutonix DCB (n = 49) versus uncoated balloons (control group [n = 52]), stratified by whether balloon-only treatment (n = 75) or stenting (n = 26) was intended. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included adjudicated major adverse events (death, amputation, target lesion thrombosis, reintervention), functional outcomes, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS Demographic, peripheral vascular disease, and lesion characteristics were matched, with mean lesion length of 8.1 3.8 cm and 42% total occlusions. At 6 months, late lumen loss was 58% lower for the Lutonix DCB group (0.46 1.13 mm) than for the control group (1.09 1.07 mm; p = 0.016). Composite 24-month major adverse events were 39% for the DCB group, including 15 target lesion revascularizations, 1 amputation, and 4 deaths versus 46% for uncoated balloon group, with 20 target lesion revascularizations, 1 thrombosis, and 5 deaths. Pharmacokinetics showed biexponential decay with peak concentration (Cmax) of 59 ng/ml and total observed exposure (AUC(all)) of 73 ng h/ml. For successful DCB deployment excluding 8 malfunctions, 6-month late lumen loss was 0.39 mm and the 24-month target lesion revascularization rate was 24%. CONCLUSIONS Treatment of femoropopliteal lesions with the low-dose Lutonix DCB reduced late lumen loss with safety comparable to that of control angioplasty. (LEVANT I, The Lutonix Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Prevention of Femoropopliteal Restenosis; NCT00930813)