INTRODUCTION: Early uncontrolled studies reported large blood pressure reductions in subjects with resistant hypertension treated with renal denervation, however these results were not confirmed in several of the latest publications. AIM: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of RDN in controlled studies comparing RDN to either a sham procedure or to medical therapy. METHOD: Only controlled studies were included in the analysis. Both the unadjusted and control-adjusted BP changes were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 11 publications of which only 3 were double-blinded RCTs with a sham control, while 8 were open label studies where the control group was treated with medical therapy. Only 2 studies assessed adherence to medical therapy with robust methodologies. Office BP reduction (- 18/8 mmHg) significantly overestimated ABPM change (- 9/- 5 mmHg), with high heterogeneity between the included studies. When the treatment effect was adjusted for the BP change in the control group, BP changes became non significant (ABPM: - 1.8 for systolic BP [95% CI - 4.5 to 0.9] and - 0.6 for diastolic BP [95% CI - 2.3 to 1.2]). These results were confirmed when only the sham-controlled studies were analysed. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of promising results in early reports, renal denervation fails to show superiority to a sham procedure or to medical therapy in recently published controlled studies. Lack of a sham control in most publications and heterogeneity in assessment of treatment adherence may account for part the variability reported in the studies. Renal denervation fails to show superiority to a sham procedure or to medical therapy in recently published controlled studies.
INTRODUCTION: Early uncontrolled studies reported large blood pressure reductions in subjects with resistant hypertension treated with renal denervation, however these results were not confirmed in several of the latest publications. AIM: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of RDN in controlled studies comparing RDN to either a sham procedure or to medical therapy. METHOD: Only controlled studies were included in the analysis. Both the unadjusted and control-adjusted BP changes were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 11 publications of which only 3 were double-blinded RCTs with a sham control, while 8 were open label studies where the control group was treated with medical therapy. Only 2 studies assessed adherence to medical therapy with robust methodologies. Office BP reduction (- 18/8 mmHg) significantly overestimated ABPM change (- 9/- 5 mmHg), with high heterogeneity between the included studies. When the treatment effect was adjusted for the BP change in the control group, BP changes became non significant (ABPM: - 1.8 for systolic BP [95% CI - 4.5 to 0.9] and - 0.6 for diastolic BP [95% CI - 2.3 to 1.2]). These results were confirmed when only the sham-controlled studies were analysed. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of promising results in early reports, renal denervation fails to show superiority to a sham procedure or to medical therapy in recently published controlled studies. Lack of a sham control in most publications and heterogeneity in assessment of treatment adherence may account for part the variability reported in the studies. Renal denervation fails to show superiority to a sham procedure or to medical therapy in recently published controlled studies.
Authors: Murray D Esler; Henry Krum; Paul A Sobotka; Markus P Schlaich; Roland E Schmieder; Michael Böhm Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Samir B Pancholy; Ghanshyam Palamaner Subash Shantha; Tejas M Patel; Paul A Sobotka; David E Kandzari Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Evgeny Pokushalov; Alexander Romanov; Giorgio Corbucci; Sergey Artyomenko; Vera Baranova; Alex Turov; Natalya Shirokova; Alexander Karaskov; Suneet Mittal; Jonathan S Steinberg Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Deepak L Bhatt; David E Kandzari; William W O'Neill; Ralph D'Agostino; John M Flack; Barry T Katzen; Martin B Leon; Minglei Liu; Laura Mauri; Manuela Negoita; Sidney A Cohen; Suzanne Oparil; Krishna Rocha-Singh; Raymond R Townsend; George L Bakris Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Juan Carlos Yugar-Toledo; Heitor Moreno Júnior; Miguel Gus; Guido Bernardo Aranha Rosito; Luiz César Nazário Scala; Elizabeth Silaid Muxfeldt; Alexandre Alessi; Andrea Araújo Brandão; Osni Moreira Filho; Audes Diógenes de Magalhães Feitosa; Oswaldo Passarelli Júnior; Dilma do Socorro Moraes de Souza; Celso Amodeo; Weimar Kunz Sebba Barroso; Marco Antônio Mota Gomes; Annelise Machado Gomes de Paiva; Eduardo Costa Duarte Barbosa; Roberto Dischinger Miranda; José Fernando Vilela-Martin; Wilson Nadruz Júnior; Cibele Isaac Saad Rodrigues; Luciano Ferreira Drager; Luiz Aparecido Bortolotto; Fernanda Marciano Consolim-Colombo; Márcio Gonçalves de Sousa; Flávio Antonio de Oliveira Borelli; Sérgio Emanuel Kaiser; Gil Fernando Salles; Maria de Fátima de Azevedo; Lucélia Batista Neves Cunha Magalhães; Rui Manoel Dos Santos Póvoa; Marcus Vinícius Bolívar Malachias; Armando da Rocha Nogueira; Paulo César Brandão Veiga Jardim; Thiago de Souza Veiga Jardim Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2020 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.000