BACKGROUND: Sympathetic nervous system plays a central role in the development and persistence of essential hypertension. In recent years renal sympathetic denervation (RSD) has emerged as a promising option for the treatment of patients with hypertension. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception through April 20, 2020. Outcomes of interest were change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic (ASBP) or diastolic blood pressure (ADBP) and change in office systolic (OSBP) or diastolic blood pressure (ODBP). We pooled data from randomized controlled trials (RCTS) comparing RSD to sham procedures in the management of hypertension using the random effect model. RESULTS: A total of 1,363 patients from eight studies were included in the current meta-analysis. The mean age of the included patients was 56 ± 2.6 years, 29% were women and the median duration of maximum follow up was 6-month (range 3-12 month). There was more reduction favoring RSD in ASBP (Weighted mean difference [WMD] -3.55; 95% CI -4.91 - -2.19, p < .001, I2 = 0%), ADBP (WMD -1.87; 95% CI -3.07 - -0.66, p = .002, I2 = 43%), OSBP (WMD -5.5; 95% CI -7.59 - -3.40, p < .001, I2 = 7%) and ODBP (WMD -3.20; 95% CI -4.47 - -1.94, p < .001, I2 = 14%). CONCLUSION: The use of RSD for the management of hypertension resulted in effective reduction in the ambulatory and office blood pressure compared to sham procedure. Adequately powered RCTs of RSD are needed to confirm safety, reproducibility and assess the impact on clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Sympathetic nervous system plays a central role in the development and persistence of essential hypertension. In recent years renal sympathetic denervation (RSD) has emerged as a promising option for the treatment of patients with hypertension. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception through April 20, 2020. Outcomes of interest were change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic (ASBP) or diastolic blood pressure (ADBP) and change in office systolic (OSBP) or diastolic blood pressure (ODBP). We pooled data from randomized controlled trials (RCTS) comparing RSD to sham procedures in the management of hypertension using the random effect model. RESULTS: A total of 1,363 patients from eight studies were included in the current meta-analysis. The mean age of the included patients was 56 ± 2.6 years, 29% were women and the median duration of maximum follow up was 6-month (range 3-12 month). There was more reduction favoring RSD in ASBP (Weighted mean difference [WMD] -3.55; 95% CI -4.91 - -2.19, p < .001, I2 = 0%), ADBP (WMD -1.87; 95% CI -3.07 - -0.66, p = .002, I2 = 43%), OSBP (WMD -5.5; 95% CI -7.59 - -3.40, p < .001, I2 = 7%) and ODBP (WMD -3.20; 95% CI -4.47 - -1.94, p < .001, I2 = 14%). CONCLUSION: The use of RSD for the management of hypertension resulted in effective reduction in the ambulatory and office blood pressure compared to sham procedure. Adequately powered RCTs of RSD are needed to confirm safety, reproducibility and assess the impact on clinical outcomes.
Authors: Patricia M Kearney; Megan Whelton; Kristi Reynolds; Paul Muntner; Paul K Whelton; Jiang He Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jan 15-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michel Azizi; Roland E Schmieder; Felix Mahfoud; Michael A Weber; Joost Daemen; Justin Davies; Jan Basile; Ajay J Kirtane; Yale Wang; Melvin D Lobo; Manish Saxena; Lida Feyz; Florian Rader; Philipp Lurz; Jeremy Sayer; Marc Sapoval; Terry Levy; Kintur Sanghvi; Josephine Abraham; Andrew S P Sharp; Naomi D L Fisher; Michael J Bloch; Helen Reeve-Stoffer; Leslie Coleman; Christopher Mullin; Laura Mauri Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Markus P Schlaich; Elisabeth Lambert; David M Kaye; Zygmunt Krozowski; Duncan J Campbell; Gavin Lambert; Jacqui Hastings; Anuradha Aggarwal; Murray D Esler Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Jackson T Wright; Jeff D Williamson; Paul K Whelton; Joni K Snyder; Kaycee M Sink; Michael V Rocco; David M Reboussin; Mahboob Rahman; Suzanne Oparil; Cora E Lewis; Paul L Kimmel; Karen C Johnson; David C Goff; Lawrence J Fine; Jeffrey A Cutler; William C Cushman; Alfred K Cheung; Walter T Ambrosius Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael Böhm; Kazuomi Kario; David E Kandzari; Felix Mahfoud; Michael A Weber; Roland E Schmieder; Konstantinos Tsioufis; Stuart Pocock; Dimitris Konstantinidis; James W Choi; Cara East; David P Lee; Adrian Ma; Sebastian Ewen; Debbie L Cohen; Robert Wilensky; Chandan M Devireddy; Janice Lea; Axel Schmid; Joachim Weil; Tolga Agdirlioglu; Denise Reedus; Brian K Jefferson; David Reyes; Richard D'Souza; Andrew S P Sharp; Faisal Sharif; Martin Fahy; Vanessa DeBruin; Sidney A Cohen; Sandeep Brar; Raymond R Townsend Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-03-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David E Kandzari; Michael Böhm; Felix Mahfoud; Raymond R Townsend; Michael A Weber; Stuart Pocock; Konstantinos Tsioufis; Dimitrios Tousoulis; James W Choi; Cara East; Sandeep Brar; Sidney A Cohen; Martin Fahy; Garrett Pilcher; Kazuomi Kario Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Raymond R Townsend; Felix Mahfoud; David E Kandzari; Kazuomi Kario; Stuart Pocock; Michael A Weber; Sebastian Ewen; Konstantinos Tsioufis; Dimitrios Tousoulis; Andrew S P Sharp; Anthony F Watkinson; Roland E Schmieder; Axel Schmid; James W Choi; Cara East; Anthony Walton; Ingrid Hopper; Debbie L Cohen; Robert Wilensky; David P Lee; Adrian Ma; Chandan M Devireddy; Janice P Lea; Philipp C Lurz; Karl Fengler; Justin Davies; Neil Chapman; Sidney A Cohen; Vanessa DeBruin; Martin Fahy; Denise E Jones; Martin Rothman; Michael Böhm Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 79.321