| Literature DB >> 29070043 |
Jean-Claude Lubanda1, Miroslav Chochola2, Mikuláš Mlček3, Petr Neužil4, Josef Marek2, Štěpán Havránek2, Sylvie Kuchynková2, Zdeňka Fingrová2, Kao-Hsuan Aimee Huang2, Aleš Linhart2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) is a promising therapeutic method in cardiology. Its currently most investigated indication is resistant hypertension. Other potential indications are atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic renal insufficiency among others. Previous trials showed conflicting but promising results, but the real benefits of RDN are still under investigation. Patients with renal insufficiency and resistant hypertension are proposed to be a good target for this therapy due to excessive activation of renal sympathetic drive. However, only limited number of studies showed benefits for these patients. We hypothesize that in our experimental model of chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to ischemia with increased activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), renal denervation can have protective effects by slowing or blocking the progression of renal injury.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic kidney disease; Remnant kidney porcine model; Renal artery embolization; Renal insufficiency; Renal ischemia; Renal sympathetic denervation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29070043 PMCID: PMC5657061 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-017-1319-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Denervation characteristics
| Group | Median [25th–75th percentile] | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| Watt max | 8.0 [6.0–10.7] | 8.8 ± 3.6 |
| Watty average | 7.2 [4.8–9.9] | 7.6 ± 3.9 |
| Temperature max | 70 [55–75] | 65 ± 12 |
| Temperature average | 60 [54–68] | 59 ± 11 |
| Time max | 120 [90–120] | 110 ± 15 |
| Time average | 117 [90–120] | 108 ± 14 |
| Impedance change right | 0.118 [0.072–0.159] | 0.119 ± 0.052 |
| Impedance change left | 0.147 [0.090–0.165] | 0.133 ± 0.049 |
| Impedance change average | 0.127 [0.097–0.153] | 0.127 ± 0.045 |
| Type of device | ||
| ThermoCool® | 5 (26%) | |
| EnligHTN™ | 6 (32%) | |
| Symplicity | 8 (42%) | |
Baseline data
| Group | Denervation | Control | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median [25th–75th percentile] | Mean ± SD | Median [25th–75th percentile] | Mean ± SD | ||
| Finished experiment | 13 (68%) | 5 (62%) | 0.77 | ||
| Baseline biochemistry | |||||
| Sodium (mmol/l) | 138.0 [133.5–138.8] | 135.8 ± 4.3 | 141.0* [138.0–143.0] | 141.3 ± 4.0* | 0.02 |
| Potassium (mmol/l) | 3.60 [3.50–3.85] | 3.70 ± 0.25 | 3.30 [3.10–3.60] | 3.38 ± 0.36 | 0.05 |
| Chloride (mmol/l) | 97.0 [94.0–98.5] | 96.5 ± 3.4 | 102.0* [99.2–104.0] | 101.7 ± 3.6* | 0.004 |
| Urea (mmol/l) | 3.10 [2.85–3.27] | 3.05 ± 0.31 | 3.10 [2.47–3.80] | 3.21 ± 1.11 | 0.77 |
| Creatinine (μmol/l) | 109 [104–128] | 118 ± 25 | 118 [93–126] | 113 ± 20 | 0.80 |
| Renin (pg/ml) | 0.30 [0.30–0.30] | 0.25 ± 0.10 | 0.30 [0.20–0.70] | 0.53 ± 0.59 | 0.79 |
| Aldosteron (ng/l) | 5.0 [5.0–5.0] | 4.3 ± 2.1 | 5.0 [4.2–5.5] | 5.9 ± 5.0 | 0.83 |
* p < 0.05 vs. denervation
Laboratory Values at Follow up, n = 18 (denervated n = 13, control n = 5)
| Variable | Group | Baseline Coef [95% CI] | Week 4 Coef [95% CI] | End of study Coef [95% CI] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creatinine (μmol/l) | Control | 119 [90–157] | 140 [99–198] | 283*† [214–375] |
| Denervation | 111 [93–132] | 125 [104–150] | 267*† [225–318] | |
| Urea (mmol/l) | Control | 2.97 [1.77–4.99] | 3.40 [1.82–6.36] | 7.53*† [4.48–12.67] |
| Denervation | 3.05 [2.21–4.21] | 3.31 [2.38–4.61] | 8.30*† [6.02–11.47] | |
| Aldosteron (ng/l) | Control | 3.20 [1.16–6.25] | 4.82 [1.64–9.68] | 5.00 [2.32–8.68] |
| Denervation | 6.53 [4.47–8.98] | 4.64 [2.94–6.74] | 2.13*† [1.03–3.61] |
Estimates are based on linear mixed models
Coef coefficient
* p < 0.05 vs. baseline
†p < 0.05 vs. 4th week. No significant differences between groups were observed at any time point
Survival rate
| Baseline | Early termination | Completed experiment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denervation | 19 | 6 | 13 (68%) |
| Control | 8 | 3 | 5 (62%) |
| Total | 27 | 9 | 18 (66%) |
Fig. 1Comparison of serum level of urea between groups (baseline/4th week/follow up)
Fig. 2Comparison of serum level of creatinin between groups (baseline/4th week/follow up)
Fig. 3Comparison of serum aldosterone level between groups (baseline/4th week/follow up)
Histology data
| Group | Control group median [25th–75th percentile] | Denervated group median [25th–75th percentile] | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arterial wall (histologic vascular injury grading scale, 0–5) | |||
| Intima | 1.50 [1.00–1.50] | 3.00* [2.00–3.75] | 0.0337 |
| Lamina elastica interna | 1.00 [1.00–1.00] | 1.50* [1.00–2.12] | 0.0464 |
| Media | 0.0 [0.0–0.5] | 2.5* [2.0–3.0] | 0.0106 |
| Lamina elastica externa | 0.00 [0.00–0.50] | 2.50* [2.00–2.62] | 0.0047 |
| Adventitia | 0.0 [0.0–0.5] | 2.5* [2.4–2.6] | 0.0029 |
| Kidney scarring (ratio of damaged surface (or scar) to overall surface of the kidney (%) | 25 [24–87] | 45 [35–62] | 0.4228 |
* p < 0.05 vs. control group
Fig. 4A cross-section of the denervated renal artery showing increased inflammation around the intima and destroyed nerves
Fig. 5Detail of a cross-section of the denervated renal artery showing increased inflammation around the intima and destroyed nerves