Annemiek F Hoogerwaard1, Mark R de Jong1, Arif Elvan2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Isala Hospital, Dr. Van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Cardiology, Isala Hospital, Dr. Van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. v.r.c.derks@isala.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) as treatment option for hypertension has a strong rationale; however, variable effects on blood pressure (BP) have been reported ranging from non-response to marked reductions in BP. The absence of a procedural end point for RDN is one of the potential factors associated with the variable response. Studies have suggested the use of renal nerve stimulation (RNS) to adequately address this issue. This review aims to provide an overview of the clinical and experimental data available regarding the effects of RNS in the setting of RDN. RECENT FINDINGS: Animal studies have shown that high-frequency electrical stimulation of the sympathetic nerves in the adventitia of the renal arteries elicits an increase in BP and leads to an increased norepinephrine spillover as a marker of increased sympathetic activity and these effects of stimulation were attenuated or blunted after RDN. In a human feasibility study using RNS both before and after RDN, similar BP responses were observed. Moreover, in patients with resistant hypertension, RNS-induced changes in BP appeared to be correlated with 24-h BP response after RDN. These data suggest that RNS is a useful tool to identify renal sympathetic nerve fibers in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension undergoing RDN, and to predict the likely effectiveness of RDN treatments. In acute procedural settings both in animal and human models, RNS elicits increase in BP and HR before RDN and these effects are blunted after RDN. Up to now, there is preliminary evidence that the RNS-induced BP changes predict 24-h ABPM outcome at follow-up in patients with resistant hypertension. Of note, studies are small sized and results of large trials comparing conventional RDN to RNS-guided RDN are warranted.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) as treatment option for hypertension has a strong rationale; however, variable effects on blood pressure (BP) have been reported ranging from non-response to marked reductions in BP. The absence of a procedural end point for RDN is one of the potential factors associated with the variable response. Studies have suggested the use of renal nerve stimulation (RNS) to adequately address this issue. This review aims to provide an overview of the clinical and experimental data available regarding the effects of RNS in the setting of RDN. RECENT FINDINGS: Animal studies have shown that high-frequency electrical stimulation of the sympathetic nerves in the adventitia of the renal arteries elicits an increase in BP and leads to an increased norepinephrine spillover as a marker of increased sympathetic activity and these effects of stimulation were attenuated or blunted after RDN. In a human feasibility study using RNS both before and after RDN, similar BP responses were observed. Moreover, in patients with resistant hypertension, RNS-induced changes in BP appeared to be correlated with 24-h BP response after RDN. These data suggest that RNS is a useful tool to identify renal sympathetic nerve fibers in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension undergoing RDN, and to predict the likely effectiveness of RDN treatments. In acute procedural settings both in animal and human models, RNS elicits increase in BP and HR before RDN and these effects are blunted after RDN. Up to now, there is preliminary evidence that the RNS-induced BP changes predict 24-h ABPM outcome at follow-up in patients with resistant hypertension. Of note, studies are small sized and results of large trials comparing conventional RDN to RNS-guided RDN are warranted.
Authors: Hitesh C Patel; Paramdeep S Dhillon; Felix Mahfoud; Alistair C Lindsay; Carl Hayward; Sabine Ernst; Alexander R Lyon; Stuart D Rosen; Carlo di Mario Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: George L Bakris; Raymond R Townsend; Minglei Liu; Sidney A Cohen; Ralph D'Agostino; John M Flack; David E Kandzari; Barry T Katzen; Martin B Leon; Laura Mauri; Manuela Negoita; William W O'Neill; Suzanne Oparil; Krishna Rocha-Singh; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Felix Mahfoud; Thomas Felix Lüscher; Bert Andersson; Iris Baumgartner; Renata Cifkova; Carlo Dimario; Pieter Doevendans; Robert Fagard; Jean Fajadet; Michel Komajda; Thierry Lefèvre; Chaim Lotan; Horst Sievert; Massimo Volpe; Petr Widimsky; William Wijns; Bryan Williams; Stephan Windecker; Adam Witkowski; Thomas Zeller; Michael Böhm Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Mark R de Jong; Ahmet Adiyaman; Pim Gal; Jaap Jan J Smit; Peter Paul H M Delnoy; Jan-Evert Heeg; Boudewijn A A M van Hasselt; Elizabeth O Y Lau; Alexandre Persu; Jan A Staessen; Anand R Ramdat Misier; Jonathan S Steinberg; Arif Elvan Journal: Hypertension Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Henry Krum; Markus Schlaich; Rob Whitbourn; Paul A Sobotka; Jerzy Sadowski; Krzysztof Bartus; Boguslaw Kapelak; Anthony Walton; Horst Sievert; Suku Thambar; William T Abraham; Murray Esler Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-28 Impact factor: 79.321