Yuanqing Yao1, Dengqing Zhang2, Jun Qian1, Shimin Deng1, Yuwen Huang1, Jing Huang1. 1. a Department of Cardiology , The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University , Chongqing , China. 2. b Department of Cardiolgy , The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University , Xiamen , Fujian , China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficiency of renal denervation (RDN) on resistant hypertension. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central database were searched for eligible randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Changes from the baseline of the office blood pressure and the 24-h ambulatory blood pressure were extracted. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included. RDN reduced the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by -8.23 mm Hg (95%CI: -16.86, 0.39) and -3.77 mm Hg (95%CI: -7.21, -0.32), respectively, compared with the control. In the population with a baseline SBP more than 170 mm Hg, the RDN reduced SBP by -17.77 mm Hg (95%CI: -33.73, -1.82) and DBP by -7.51 mm Hg (95%CI: -12.58, -2.44). In the subgroup with no medication adjustment, the RDN reduced SBP by -15.56 mm Hg (95%CI: -26.33, -4.80) and DBP by -6.89 mm Hg (95%CI: -9.99, -3.79). The proportion of patients with SBP decrease of 10 mm Hg or more and the controlled office BP were not different between two groups. RDN reduced 24-h mean SBP and DBP by -3.34 mm Hg (95%CI: -5.30, -1.38) and -1.56 mm Hg (95%CI: -2.71, -0.41), respectively. The SBPs in the subgroups with higher baseline SBP and with no medication adjustment were significantly decreased after the HTN-3 was omitted. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency RDN in a randomized manner did not have superiority compared with medical treatment at 6-month follow-up in general population. Current evidence provides insufficient evidence to support the use of such RDN strategy in the treatment of resistant hypertension. The result could not be used to extrapolate other strategies' effect.
BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficiency of renal denervation (RDN) on resistant hypertension. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central database were searched for eligible randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Changes from the baseline of the office blood pressure and the 24-h ambulatory blood pressure were extracted. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included. RDN reduced the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by -8.23 mm Hg (95%CI: -16.86, 0.39) and -3.77 mm Hg (95%CI: -7.21, -0.32), respectively, compared with the control. In the population with a baseline SBP more than 170 mm Hg, the RDN reduced SBP by -17.77 mm Hg (95%CI: -33.73, -1.82) and DBP by -7.51 mm Hg (95%CI: -12.58, -2.44). In the subgroup with no medication adjustment, the RDN reduced SBP by -15.56 mm Hg (95%CI: -26.33, -4.80) and DBP by -6.89 mm Hg (95%CI: -9.99, -3.79). The proportion of patients with SBP decrease of 10 mm Hg or more and the controlled office BP were not different between two groups. RDN reduced 24-h mean SBP and DBP by -3.34 mm Hg (95%CI: -5.30, -1.38) and -1.56 mm Hg (95%CI: -2.71, -0.41), respectively. The SBPs in the subgroups with higher baseline SBP and with no medication adjustment were significantly decreased after the HTN-3 was omitted. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency RDN in a randomized manner did not have superiority compared with medical treatment at 6-month follow-up in general population. Current evidence provides insufficient evidence to support the use of such RDN strategy in the treatment of resistant hypertension. The result could not be used to extrapolate other strategies' effect.