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.
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 hypertensivepatients, 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.
Authors: Dominik Linz; Arne van Hunnik; Christian Ukena; Sebastian Ewen; Felix Mahfoud; Stephan H Schirmer; Matthias Lenski; Hans-Ruprecht Neuberger; Ulrich Schotten; Michael Böhm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Britta Vogel; Michael Kirchberger; Martin Zeier; Felicitas Stoll; Benjamin Meder; Daniel Saure; Martin Andrassy; Oliver J Mueller; Stefan Hardt; Vedat Schwenger; Anna Strothmeyer; Hugo A Katus; Erwin Blessing Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Oliver Dörr; Sebastian Ewen; Christoph Liebetrau; Helge Möllmann; Luise Gaede; Dominik Linz; Mathias Hohl; Christian Troidl; Timm Bauer; Michael Böhm; Christian Hamm; Felix Mahfoud; Holger Nef Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Guido Lastra; Sofia Syed; L Romayne Kurukulasuriya; Camila Manrique; James R Sowers Journal: Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 4.741
Authors: Robert M Carey; David A Calhoun; George L Bakris; Robert D Brook; Stacie L Daugherty; Cheryl R Dennison-Himmelfarb; Brent M Egan; John M Flack; Samuel S Gidding; Eric Judd; Daniel T Lackland; Cheryl L Laffer; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Steven M Smith; Sandra J Taler; Stephen C Textor; Tanya N Turan; William B White Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: B-K Kim; M Böhm; F Mahfoud; G Mancia; S Park; M-K Hong; H-S Kim; S-J Park; C G Park; K B Seung; H-C Gwon; D-J Choi; T H Ahn; C J Kim; H M Kwon; M Esler; Y S Jang Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.012