| Literature DB >> 26934735 |
Manuel de Sousa Almeida1,2,3, Pedro de Araújo Gonçalves1,2,3, Patricia Branco1,2, João Mesquita1, Maria Salomé Carvalho1, Helder Dores1,2,3, Henrique Silva Sousa1, Augusta Gaspar1, Eduarda Horta1, Ana Aleixo3, Nuno Neuparth3, Miguel Mendes1, Maria João Andrade1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Catheter-based sympathetic renal denervation (RDN) is a recent therapeutic option for patients with resistant hypertension. However, the impact of RDN in left ventricular (LV) mass and function is not completely established. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of RDN on LV structure and function (systolic and diastolic) in patients with resistant hypertension (HTN). METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26934735 PMCID: PMC4774915 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149855
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flowchart with patient selection.
From the total number of patients evaluated in a dedicated outpatient hypertension clinic (n = 318), 65 patients were submitted to renal denervation, after the exclusion of 253 due to several reasons listed. From these 65 patients, it was possible to obtain complete 1 year follow up with ambulatory blood pressure measurement and transthoracic echocardiogram. RDN—renal denervation; HTN—hypertension; eGFR—estimated glomerular filtration rate; ABPM –24 hours ambulatory blood pressure measurement; TTE-transthoracic echocardiogram.
Patient’s baseline and RDN procedure characteristics.
| Age (years) | 65±7 |
| Male (%) | 15 (48.4) |
| Caucasians (%) | 31 (100) |
| Weight (kg) | 86±16 |
| Height (m) | 1.65±0.1 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 31.8±5.5 |
| Obesity (%) | 21 (67.7) |
| Atrial fibrillation (%) | 1 (3.2) |
| Previous stroke (%) | 2 (6.5) |
| Type 2 Diabetes (%) | 22 (71) |
| Dyslipidaemia (%) | 21 (67.7) |
| Smoking (%) | 1 (3.2) |
| Sleep apnea (%) | 5 (19.1) |
| eGFR (ml/min/1,73m2) | 76.4±24.7 |
| CKD* (%) | 5 (16.1) |
| Hypertension > 10 years (%) | 28 (90.3) |
| Coronary artery disease (%) | 10 (32.3) |
| Any vascular disease (%) | 11 (35.5) |
| Mean number of applications right renal artery | 5.1±1.3 |
| Mean number of applications left renal artery | 5.7±1.1 |
| Mean number of applications per patient | 10.8±2.3 |
eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate;
CKD, *Chronic kidney disease(eGFR <60 ml/min/1,73m2)
Antihypertensive medication.
| Baseline | One year | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean number of antihypertensive drugs | 5.8±1.1 | 5.0±1.2 | 0.002 |
| Mean number of classes | 5.5±0.9 | 4.9±1.1 | 0.015 |
| ACE inhibitors | 19 (61.3) | 17(54.8) | 0.688 |
| ARBs (%) | 19 (61.3) | 18 (58.1) | 1.0 |
| Beta-blockers (%) | 26 (83.9) | 27 (87.1) | 1.0 |
| Calcium channel blockers (%) | 30 (96.8) | 21 (67.7) | 0.012 |
| Diuretics (%) | 27 (87.1) | 24 (77.4) | 0.727 |
| Spironolactone (%) | 23 (74.2) | 26 (83.9) | 0.453 |
| Sympatholytic (%) | 22 (71) | 19 (61.3) | 0.508 |
| Aliskirene | 4 (12.9) | 0 | 0.046 |
ACE, Angiotensin converting enzyme; ARB, Angiotensin receptor blockers
RDN results on blood pressure and heart rate.
| Baseline | One-year | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Office systolic BP (mmHg) | 176±24 | 149±13 | < .001 |
| Office diastolic BP (mmHg) | 90±14 | 79±11 | < .001 |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 73±11 | 70±11 | .261 |
| ABPM systolic BP (mmHg) | 150±20 | 132±14 | < .001 |
| ABPM diastolic BP (mmHg) | 83±10 | 74±9 | < .001 |
| ABPM pulse pressure (mmHg) | 67±18 | 58±13 | .001 |
| ABPM mean pressure (mmHg) | 105±9 | 95,3±8,4 | < .001 |
| ABPM heart rate (bpm) | 67.6±9.1 | 65.5±9.5 | .090 |
| ABPM SBP responders | - | 26 (83.9) | - |
| Office SBP responders | - | 22 (71) | - |
BP, blood pressure; bpm, beats per minute; ABPM, 24 hours ambulatory blood pressure measurement;
* ABPM SBP responders: a decrease of 2mmHg between baseline ABPM SBP and at one year;
**Office SBP responders: a decrease of 10mmHg between baseline office SBP and at one year.
Fig 2Results at 1 year after renal denervation (blood pressure and left ventricle mass index).
Results in systolic blood pressure (both office and ABPM) and LVMI in TTE at 1-year follow-up are shown, with significant reductions in both parameters. BP- blood pressure; ABPM –24 hours ambulatory blood pressure measurement; LVMI—left ventricle mass index; TTE-transthoracic echocardiogram.
Fig 3Comparison of different LV geometric patterns at baseline and 1 year after renal denervation.
The percentage of patients in each LV geometric pattern class is depicted. Concentric remodelling was defined as relative wall thickness (RWT) of >0.42 with normal LV mass and normal geometry was defined as a RWT of ≤0.42 with normal LV mass.
Fig 4Comparison of LV diastolic function at baseline and 1 year after renal denervation.
The percentage of patients in each diastolic function group (Normal, Impaired relaxation, pseudonormal and restrictive) is depicted.
Echocardiographic parameters at baseline and at one-year follow-up in patients submitted to RDN.
| Baseline | One-year | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LVEDV (mL) | 93.3±18,2 | 110.9±27.4 | .004 |
| LVESV (mL) | 35.8±12.6 | 38.2±3.1 | .121 |
| IVSTd (mm) | 13.4±1.9 | 13.1±2.4 | .616 |
| PWTd (mm) | 11.7±1.6 | 11.8±1.7 | .620 |
| LVEDD (mm) | 48.7±5.8 | 47.8±5.4 | .230 |
| LVESD (mm) | 28.9±5.7 | 27.9±6.5 | .296 |
| LV mass/BSC (g/m2) | 152.3±32.4 | 135.7±33.9 | < .001 |
| LA volume index (ml/m2) | 32.8±8.3 | 34.1±6.2 | .227 |
| LVEF Simpson (%) | 64.5±9.2 | 67.7±9.1 | .001 |
| Stroke volume (ml) | 81.7±14.9 | 102.7±16.7 | .075 |
| Mitral valve E Vmax (cm/s) | 73.6±15.2 | 73.2±16.4 | .881 |
| Mitral valve A Vmax (cm/s) | 88.3±16.5 | 86.0±21 | .469 |
| Mitral valve E/A ratio | 0.84±0.21 | 0.86±0.20 | .574 |
| Mitral valve E deceleration time (ms) | 224.9±49.4 | 247.3±50.5 | .015 |
| Mitral valve lateral E’ (cm/s) | 7.2±1.8 | 7.3±2.1 | .417 |
| Mitral valve lateral E/E’ | 11.0±3.3 | 10.5±3.5 | .228 |
LVEDVI, left ventricle end-diastolic volume; LVESVI, left ventricle end-systolic volume; IVSTd, interventricular septum thickness on diastole; PWTd, posterior wall thickness on diastole; LVEDD, left ventricle end-diastolic diameter, LVESD, left ventricle end-systolic diameter; LV, left ventricle; BSC, body surface area; LA, left atrium; LVEF, left ventricle ejection fraction.
Fig 5Relation between LV mass index and ABPM systolic BP changes at 1 year follow-up.
Horizontal line set at 2mmHg for responder in ABPM systolic BP reduction. Five patients had regression in LVMI without significant (>2mmHg) reduction in ABPM systolic BP and 5 additional patients were ABPM systolic BP responders but without reduction in LVMI. BP- blood pressure; ABPM –24 hours ambulatory blood pressure measurement; LV—left ventricle.