Endovascular baroreflex amplification and the effect on sympathetic nerve activity in patients with resistant hypertension: A proof-of-principle study.

BACKGROUND: First in human studies suggest that endovascular baroreflex amplification (EVBA) lowers blood pressure (BP). To explore potential mechanisms for BP reduction, this study examines the effects of EVBA on muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) and baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS).
METHODS: In a single-center sub-study of the CALM-DIEM study (Controlling And Lowering blood pressure with the MobiusHD-Defining Efficacy Markers), 14 patients with resistant hypertension were treated with EVBA. Microneurography and non-invasive continuous BP measurements were performed at baseline and three months after MobiusHD implantation. The primary outcome was change in MSNA. Secondary outcomes were change in baroreflex sensitivity (BRS), cardiovascular responses to a sympathetic stimulus, BP, heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV).
RESULTS: The primary endpoint was obtained in 10 of 14 patients enrolled in the sub-study. MSNA burst frequency and burst incidence decreased in 6 of 10 patients: mean change -4.1 bursts/min (95% confidence interval -12.2 to 4.0) and -3.8 bursts/100 heartbeats (-15.2 to 7.7). MSNA spike frequency and spike count decreased in 8 of 10 patients: mean change -2.8 spikes/sec (-7.3 to 1.8) and -3.0 spikes/heartbeat (-6.1 to 0.1). Change in MSNA and BP were not correlated. Office BP decreased by -14/-6 mmHg (-27 to -2/-15 to 3). We observed a trend towards decreased HR (-5 bpm, -10 to 1) and increased total power HRV (623 msec2, 78 to 1168). In contrast, BRS and cardiovascular responses remained unchanged after EVBA.
CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-principle study, EVBA did not significantly decrease MSNA in patients with resistant hypertension. EVBA did not impair baroreflex function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration at NCT02827032.

Introduction

Sympathetic overdrive is regarded as one of the key characteristics in patients with primary hypertension and is exceptionally high in patients with resistant hypertension [1]. Therefore, several treatment strategies have focused on decreasing sympathetic activity in order to lower blood pressure (BP). An exceptional target is the carotid baroreceptor which undergoes complex changes in hypertensive patients [2] and plays a central role in the development and sustainment of the hypertensive continuum.

Electrical baroreflex activation was the first antihypertensive device therapy targeting the carotid baroreflex applied in humans and showed a decrease in sympathetic activity and BP [3-5]. However, electrical pulse generator implantation is an invasive surgical procedure under general anesthesia [6], it is associated with unfavourable side effects such as jaw or neck pain, nerve injury, globus sensation, cough or dysphonia, and requires battery replacement every few years [7]. Therefore, a less invasive procedure, also relying on baroreflex modulation, has been developed: endovascular baroreflex amplification (EVBA) by the implantable MobiusHD device. The MobiusHD is an endovascular device implanted in the carotid sinus. It is assumed to reshape the carotid artery intermittently during the cardiac cycle, thereby increasing vessel wall strain and baroreceptor firing. It is hypothesized that this triggers the baroreflex pathway leading to decreased sympathetic activity and a fall in BP [8, 9].

The first-in-human study of EVBA showed a favourable and sustainable effect on BP with an acceptable safety profile six months after implantation [8]. However, the mechanism by which EVBA reduces BP has never been studied. It is also unknown whether and to what extent the device interferes with baroreflex function. Therefore, the primary aim of this proof-of-concept study was to determine the effect of EVBA on muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA). Secondary aims were to determine if the MobiusHD device changes baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS) and sympathetic cardiovascular reactivity. Additionally, we studied the effect of EVBA on BP, heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV). Finally, we present the 3-month safety.

Methods

Study design and population

Patients with resistant hypertension who attended the outpatient hypertension clinic of the University Medical Center Utrecht were asked to participate in this single-centre sub-study of the CALM-DIEM study (Controlling And Lowering blood pressure with the MobiusHD—Defining Efficacy Markers) by their physician. The CALM-DIEM study was an observational study including patients (18–80 years of age) with primary resistant hypertension (24-h mean ambulatory systolic BP >130 mmHg on a stable regimen of at least three antihypertensive medications, including a diuretic). Fourteen patients were included between November 2016 and November 2018. Main exclusion criteria were: hypertension secondary to an identifiable and treatable cause other than sleep apnea; any plaque, ulceration or stenosis in the carotid artery or the aortic arch; and carotid artery lumen <5.00 mm or >11.75 mm or too much tapering at the planned location for implantation (S1 File). Patients in the sub-study consented to undergo additional measures in our hospital. The study was approved by Medical Ethics Committee United (Nieuwegein, the Netherlands) and conforms to the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki ethical guidelines. All patients gave their written informed consent. Safety was monitored by an independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB). The CALM-DIEM study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02827032). Because of its small size and the enrolment of patients in a single center only, the present sub-study was initially not registered with the main study. The sub-study was added after enrolment of the participants started. We confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this intervention are registered.

Study procedures

All patients underwent carotid duplex and computed tomography angiography to rule out carotid anatomical anomalies, plaque, or stenosis that would preclude MobiusHD placement. After confirmation of eligibility, antihypertensive medications were discontinued for a period of 2 weeks (beta blockers required a preceding 2-week tapering scheme) before sympathetic and cardiovascular measurements were performed. If deemed appropriate, i.e. when escape medication was required during medication washout in the prior diagnostic programme, calcium channel blockers were prescribed, with a similar dose at baseline and 3 months. This strategy was implemented to ensure that antihypertensive medication use remained stable over time.

MobiusHD implantation was preceded by bilateral carotid angiography to examine whether the internal carotid arteries were anatomically suitable for implantation and to determine implant size: 5.00–7.00 mm (A), 6.25–9.00 mm (B) and 8.00–11.75 mm (C). The MobiusHD was implanted unilaterally on the anatomically best suited side. The implantations were performed by an experienced neurointerventionist who had performed sixteen MobiusHD implantations before and more than hundred conventional carotid stent implantations. The procedure has been described in detail before [8]. Intravenous heparin was administered during the implantation procedure. All patients received dual antiplatelet therapy with 80 mg aspirin and 5–10 mg prasugrel (or equivalent) from 5 days before implantation to 3 months after implantation. Aspirin was continued indefinitely.

Sympathetic and cardiovascular measurements

Sympathetic and cardiovascular measurements were performed at baseline and 3 months after MobiusHD implantation after a light breakfast in the morning hours. Patients had to empty their bladder just before start of the measurements and were discouraged from engaging in vigorous exercise, smoking and drinking alcohol, coffee, tea or other beverages containing caffeine in the 24-h before the measurements. Measurements were performed in supine position in a dimly-lit room. Non-invasive beat-by-beat BP and ECG were recorded continuously (Finapres NOVA, FMS, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). In addition, brachial artery BP was measured twice with appropriately sized cuffs, on the left arm and 1 min apart. Sympathetic nerve activity was recorded with microelectrodes (UNP35FAT or UNP35F2S, FHC Inc., Bowdoin, United States, after 10 cases we switched to UNP35F2S to improve quality) from the right peroneal nerve using ADInstruments (Powerlab 16/35 with Neuro Amp EX 4, NSW, Australia) equipment. Microneurography was performed by an experienced neurophysiologist (L.O.) who had performed hundreds of procedures previously [10, 11]. The MSNA signal was identified by a classical response to the Valsalva maneuver and absence of response to tactile and auditory stimulation. After instrumentation and detection of the nerve signal, sympathetic and cardiovascular parameters were measured under the following conditions: 1) twice, each for 5 min, in resting supine position; 2) during two 15-sec 40 mmHg Valsalva maneuvers (ANS application of the Finapres NOVA system); and 3) during a 2-min cold pressor test (S1 Fig). At baseline and 3 months, ambulatory BP was recorded by an oscillometric device (SpaceLabs 90217, Spacelabs Healthcare, Issaqua, WA, United States) on the non-dominant arm, before antihypertensive medication washout. BP was recorded every 20 min during the day and every 60 min during the night.

Resting muscle sympathetic nerve activity

Data were analog-to-digital converted and analyzed using a program written by one of the authors (A.D.). The analyst (K.H.) was blinded for the patients and timepoints. The following parameters were determined from the integrated nerve signal obtained during the two 5-min resting state measurements: number of bursts per min (burst frequency) and number of bursts per 100 heartbeats (burst incidence). In addition to the planned burst analysis of the integrated signal, we also determined the effect of EVBA on raw MSNA action potential content parameters: mean beat-to-beat median spike frequency and mean beat-to-beat spike count [12, 13] which can reveal additional physiological information about the firing pattern that may get lost in the integration process for the common envelope curve of integrated MSNA burst activity. All four parameters were averaged over the two 5-min resting episodes. Patients with frequent premature beats (>10% of the beats) or insufficient quality of the MSNA signal (signal-to-noise ratio ≤2) were excluded from analysis.

Cardiac baroreflex sensitivity

Spontaneous cardiac BRS was assessed by using the sequence technique to calculate the slope of the linear regression line between systolic BP and subsequent RR-intervals (within the same or the next heartbeat) [14, 15]. Sequences with at least three intervals, 0.5 mmHg systolic BP change, and 0.5 msec RR-interval change, were analyzed only if the R-Squared values were >0.85. The lag between the systolic BP and R-top which produced the maximum number of significant sequences (0, 1 or 2 beats) was selected. The median slope of significant sequences was determined and averaged over the two 5-min resting periods. In addition, spontaneous cardiac BRS was calculated by the cross-correlation method (xBRS) implemented in the Finapres software. In short, xBRS computes the correlation between systolic BP and RR-interval, resampled at 1 Hz, in a sliding 10-second window, with delays of 0–5 seconds for interval [16]. The delay with the greatest positive correlation is selected and, when significant at p<0.01, the slope is recorded as one xBRS value. The xBRS values obtained during 0:10–5:00 min of the two resting state measurements were averaged. Evoked cardiac BRS was determined by estimating the linear regression slope of RR-interval plotted against systolic BP in early phase II of the Valsalva maneuver (S2 Fig), only if the correlation coefficients were >0.85. The average slope of two Valsalva maneuvers was calculated. Patients with arrhythmias (i.e. frequent premature beats) or less than three significant sequences were excluded from analysis.

Sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity

Spontaneous sympathetic BRS was assessed in the two 5-min resting recordings using the threshold technique as described by Kienbaum et al [17]. Diastolic BPs were grouped into bins of one mmHg and within these bins the percentage of heartbeats associated with a burst was determined. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine the threshold slope of the percentages plotted against the means of the diastolic BP bins, weighted for the number of cardiac cycles within each bin [18]. A p-value of <0.05 was used as the criterion to accept the slope. Additionally the T50 was determined, which is the diastolic BP at which 50% of the heartbeats is associated with a burst. The threshold slopes and T50’s were averaged over the two 5-min resting episodes. Evoked sympathetic BRS was assessed by dividing the change in median spike rate by the change in systolic BP during early phase II of the Valsalva maneuver (S2 Fig), compared to the 15 seconds before the Valsalva maneuver [19]. The average of two Valsalva’s was taken. Patients with frequent premature beats, insufficient quality of the MSNA signal or non-significant threshold slopes (for evoked sympathetic BRS only) were excluded from analysis.

Cardiovascular reactivity to sympathetic stimulus

Cardiovascular reactivity to a sympathetic stimulus was assessed by examining the response to the cold pressor test. Patients were asked to submerge their hand (up to the wrist) in a bucket of ice water, for 2 min. MSNA burst indices, mean arterial BP and heart rate during the second min of the cold pressor test were compared to the 2-min pre-cold pressor test averages and the change was recorded [20-22]. As for the estimation of resting MSNA, patients with frequent premature beats or insufficient quality of the MSNA signal during the cold pressor test were excluded from analysis of MSNA indices.

Heart rate variability

Power spectral density of heart rate variability (HRV) was estimated from the two 5-min recordings of RR-intervals during spontaneous breathing with the fast Fourier transformation-based Welch algorithm [19]. Total power (TP), power in the low-frequency range (LF, 0.04–0.15 Hz), high frequency range (HF, 0.15–0.40 Hz) and the LF to HF ratio (LF:HF) were calculated according to the Task Force recommendations [23]. Patients with frequent premature beats or arrhythmias were excluded from analysis.

Safety outcomes

Safety outcomes, as defined in the main study, were: 30-day major adverse clinical events (death, stroke and/or myocardial infarction), periprocedural device-related serious events (carotid artery rupture, dissection, aneurysm, stenosis or occlusion), serious adverse events and unanticipated adverse device effects.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics are presented as mean ± SD or median ± IQR. Mean sympathetic and cardiovascular parameters presented in the remaining tables are presented with their SE. Mean changes are presented with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Change in MSNA, BRS, cardiovascular reactivity to sympathetic stimulus, BP, HR and HRV were tested by the paired t-test. The relationship between change in MSNA and change in office BP was assessed by Pearson correlation analysis. Adverse events were reported as counts and percentage of the total study population. Although a sample size calculation is uncommon in a proof-of-principle study, we estimated that a minimum of 9 paired MSNA measurements was needed to show a change of 10 bursts/min or 15 bursts/100hb with 90% power (two-sided tests at the 5% level). Enrollment stopped after these 9 pairs were successfully obtained. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with R, version 3.5.1 (R Development Core Team, Vienna, Austria).

Role of the funding source

The study sponsor (Vascular Dynamics, Inc.) was involved in study design of the main study, data monitoring and central storage of the data. The study sponsor was not involved in design of the sub-study and had no role in data analysis, data interpretation or manuscript preparation. The authors had full access to the study data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Results

Forty-two patients were screened for eligibility (Fig 1), 14 (mean age 51.6 (± 6.8) years, four women) were implanted with the MobiusHD device, 8 (57%) on the right and 6 (43%) on the left (Table 1). One patient was unable to attend the 3-month follow-up visit due to psychosocial issues, which were absent at time of inclusion, leaving 13 patients available for analysis of sympathetic and cardiovascular parameters. An overview of the number of patients in- and excluded per parameter and the reasons for exclusion is provided in S1 Table.

Fig 1

Flow chart of the patients screened, excluded, lost to follow-up and excluded from analysis of the primary endpoint.

SBP = systolic blood pressure, meds = antihypertensive medications, MSNA = muscle sympathetic nerve activity.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of all implanted patients.

	Patients implanted
	(n = 14)
Age (years)	51.6 (6.8)
Women	4 (29%)
Diabetes mellitus	2 (14%)
Cardiovascular disease	1 (7%)
Prior renal denervation	4 (29%)
Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome	4 (29%)
Current smoker	2 (14%)
Body mass index (kg/m2)	27.9 (4.9)
eGFR (ml/min/1.73m2)	81 (12)
Office blood pressure (mmHg)	178/107 (25/17)
Heart rate (bpm)	79 (10)
24-h ambulatory blood pressure (mmHg)	156/95 (20/15)
Number of antihypertensive medications	3 (3–4)
Daily defined dose	5 (3–5)
A+C+D regimen	11 (79%)
A+C+D+MRA regimen	2 (14%)
Escape medication	9 (64%)
Side of MobiusHD implantation (left)	6 (43%)

Data displayed as mean (SD), median (IQR) or n (%). eGFR estimated by the CKD-EPI formula. A = ACE-inhibitor, angiotensine-II-receptor blocker or direct renin inhibitor, C = calcium channel antagonist, D = diuretic, MRA = mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.

Burst frequency and burst incidence decreased in 6 of the 10 patients (60%) (Fig 2 and S2 Table), mean beat-to-beat median spike frequency and mean beat-to-beat spike count decreased in 8 of the 10 patients (80%). Point estimates of change were: -4.1 bursts/min (95% CI -12.2 to 4.0) (burst frequency), -3.8 bursts/100 heartbeats (-15.2 to 7.7) (burst incidence), -2.8 spikes/sec (-7.3 to 1.8) (beat-to-beat median spike frequency) and -3.0 spikes/beat (-6.1 to 0.1) (beat-to-beat spike count) (Table 2). The trend to decrease in MSNA could not be explained by change in quality of the MSNA measurement, since MSNA signal-to-noise ratio at baseline and 3 months post-implantation were similar. Change in MSNA and change in office systolic BP were not correlated (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Individual MSNA changes and correlation with change in BP.

Panel I: individual changes in burst frequency (Ia), burst incidence (Ib), mean beat-to-beat median spike frequency (Ic), and mean beat-to-beat spike count (Id). Panel II: correlation between change in office SBP and change in burst frequency (Ia), burst incidence (IIb), mean beat-to-beat median spike frequency (IIc), and mean beat-to-beat spike count (IId). Observations in the left lower quadrants of the plots support baroreflex-mediated BP reduction. SBP = systolic blood pressure, BF = burst frequency, BI = burst incidence, r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient, p = p-value.

Table 2

Sympathetic and cardiovascular parameters at baseline and 3 months after implantation.

	N	baseline	3 months	p-value
MSNA
Burst frequency (bursts/min)	10	38.3 (5.0)	34.2 (5.6)	0.284
Burst incidence (bursts/100hb)	10	51.2 (6.7)	47.5 (7.2)	0.476
Mean beat-to-beat median spike freq (spikes/sec)	10	13.2 (1.4)	10.4 (2.2)	0.200
Mean beat-to-beat spike count (spikes/beat)	10	13.5 (1.5)	11.9 (1.9)	0.059
BRS
cBRS Valsalva (msec/mmHg)	12	2.7 (0.5)	2.6 (0.4)	0.738
cBRS Sequence up (msec/mmHg)	10	4.5 (0.9)	4.3 (0.5)	0.774
cBRS Sequence down (msec/mmHg)	10	4.8 (0.8)	5.6 (0.7)	0.106
xBRS (msec/mmHg)	10	5.0 (0.6)	5.7 (0.9)	0.325
sBRS Valsalva (spikes/sec/mmHg)	8	-0.6 (0.1)	-0.5 (0.2)	0.621
sBRS T50 (mmHg)	9	79.0 (6.5)	76.0 (8.1)	0.516
sBRS treshold slope (%/mmHg)	9	-2.3 (0.3)	-2.3 (0.3)	0.884
CPT response
Δ MAP to CPT (mmHg)	13	34.6 (4.2)	33.9 (3.8)	0.855
Δ HR to CPT (bpm)	13	11.7 (1.9)	11.1 (1.9)	0.631
Δ burst incididence to CPT (bursts/100hb)	8	16.8 (5.3)	19.1 (6.2)	0.567
Δ burst frequency to CPT (bursts/min)	8	17.8 (5.1)	20.3 (5.5)	0.484
BP and HR
Office SBP (mmHg)	13	182 (6)	168 (6)	0.027
Office DBP (mmHg)	13	112 (5)	105 (5)	0.150
24-h Ambulatory SBP (mmHg)	13	155 (6)	152 (7)	0.512
24-h Ambulatory DBP (mmHg)	13	96 (4)	93 (5)	0.353
HR (bpm)	13	74 (3)	69 (4)	0.074
HRV
Total power (msec2)	11	671.3 (124.2)	1294.2 (323.3)	0.029
LF power (msec2)	11	224.0 (65.2)	320.9 (76.7)	0.231
HF power (msec2)	11	63.7 (16.8)	122.7 (38.6)	0.055
LF:HF ratio	11	4.8 (1.0)	4.8 (1.2)	0.961

N represents the number of patients analyzed, numbers represent means (SE), p-values are obtained from paired t-tests. MSNA = muscle sympathetic nerve activity, BRS = baroreflex sensitivity, cBRS = cardiac BRS, xBRS = cross-correlation BRS, sBRS = sympathetic BRS, T50 = diastolic BP at which 50% of the heartbeats is associated with a burst, CPT = cold pressor test, MAP = mean arterial pressure, HR = heart rate, BP = blood pressure, SBP = systolic BP, DBP = diastolic BP, HRV = heart rate variability, LF = low frequency, HF = high frequency.

Baroreflex sensitivity and cardiovascular responses to sympathetic stimulus

Sympathetic and cardiac BRS were not affected by EVBA (Table 2). In addition, MSNA, MAP and HR response to cold pressor testing remained unchanged following EVBA.

Blood pressure, heart rate and heart rate variability

Mean office BP (measured after medication washout on the day of MSNA recording) decreased by -14/-6 mmHg from baseline (95% CI -27 to -2/-15 to 3) (Table 2). Mean 24-h ambulatory BP (measured while patients were on medication) did not decrease significantly (-3/-4 mmHg, 95% CI -13 to 7/-12 to 4). HR decreased in 9 of 13 patients (69%), however, also this decrease was not significant: -5 bpm (95% CI -10 to 1) on average. There was a trend to increased mean HRV in the total power (623 msec2, 95% CI 78 to 1168) and high frequency spectral power (59 msec2, 95% CI -1.5 to 120) (Table 2).

Safety

One major adverse clinical event occurred in one patient (7%) after MobiusHD implantation on the left (S3 Table). This patient developed vertigo without light headedness on the day after the procedure. Diffusion-weighted MRI, which was performed eight days post-procedure, showed diffusion restriction in the right putamen indicating recent ischemia. The DSMB attributed this event to extreme hypotenstion that occurred post-procedure: office systolic BP dropped from 189/112 mmHg at baseline to approximately 100/50 mmHg in the days after the procedure. We did not observe any periprocedural device-related serious events. Two patients (14%) developed post-procedural groin bleeding which required intervention by means of a femostop. Both patients remained hemodynamically stable and did not require blood transfusions. In one patient this lead to prolonged hospitalization and was therefore categorized as a serious adverse event. Other adverse events that were related or possibly related to the device or procedure were: temporary decrease in kidney function (eGFR decrease of >10%, n = 3, 21%), pain at the puncture site (n = 2, 14%), dizziness (n = 1, 7%), epistaxis and axillary hematoma (n = 1, 7%), headache (n = 1, 7%), and periprocedural chest pain without typical electrocardiographic changes or elevated mycardial enzymes (n = 1, 7%). We did not observe any unanticipated adverse device effects.

Discussion

In this proof-of-principle study EVBA did not result in a significant decrease in MSNA in patients with resistant hypertension. Furthermore, EVBA did not impair cardiovascular compensatory mechanisms.

Since sympathetic overactivity is one of the key features of hypertension, EVBA aims to reduce sympathetic activity through the negative feedback mechanism of the baroreflex. In the present study we quantified systemic sympathetic activity by measuring MSNA from the peroneal nerve, which is one of the most technically challenging but reliable methods to assess overall sympathetic drive [24-26]. Although integrated MSNA decreased in 6 out of 10 patients (60%) following EVBA and raw MSNA decreased in 8 out of 10 patients (80%), mean MSNA changes were not significant.

Several reasons may explain the lack of a significant effect on MSNA in the present study. In the first place, this is a proof-of-principle study in a small group of patients. Secondly, the proportion of BP responders to EVBA implantation was small and mean BP changes were modest (office systolic BP decreased by 14 mmHg [95% CI 2–27] and 24-h ambulatory BP did not significantly decrease [-3 mmHg, 95% CI -7–13]). This may explain why a significant effect on MSNA was not observed. Also, calcium channel blockers that were prescribed as escape medication could have attenuated the effect, as MSNA initially increases when calcium channel blockers are initiated [10]. Finally, the absence of a positive correlation between change in MSNA and change in BP (which was present in the studies investigating BAT [3, 7]) implies that the observed decrease in BP may not be mediated (solely) by sympathetic inhibition, but by another, currently unknown mechanism. Given the large within-patient variability of the MSNA measurement and the limited number of patients studied, these correlations and conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

Since the MobiusHD implant changes the geometric properties of the carotid sinus and is designed to modulate baroreflex pathways, an important finding of our study is that baroreflex sensitivity and cardiovascular responses to a sympathetic stimulus did not change after EVBA, indicating that cardiovascular compensatory mechanisms were preserved. The trend to decreased HR after MobiusHD implantation together with an increase in HRV predominantly in the high frequency spectrum indicates that EVBA may modulate the parasympathetic nervous system. A decrease in HR has also been observed in hypertensive patients treated with BAT: HR decreased by 4.6 bpm (95% CI 1.6–7.6) with the Rheos system [3] and by 3.6 bpm (95% CI 1.5–5.7) with the Barostim neo [7]. The increase in HRV during BAT, however, was not significant [3]. The effects of antihypertensive treatment on HRV have also been studied in patients treated with renal denervation [27]. After renal denervation, the LF/HF ratio in response to renal nerve stimulation decreased significantly due to a decrease in the LF component (reflecting sympathetic tone) and an increase in the HF component (reflecting parasympathetic tone). The trend to a decrease in HR in the present study contrasts our observations from the first-in-human study [8] in which HR did not change following EVBA. The difference might be explained, at least in part, by the influence of antihypertensive drugs which were temporarily discontinued in this proof-of-principle study.

The moderate BP response in the present study compared to the first-in-human study is remarkable. Mean office systolic BP in the present study decreased by 14 mmHg (95% CI 2–27) compared to 24 mmHg (95%CI 12–35) in the previous study. Also, the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant BP response (defined as at least 10 mmHg decrease in office systolic BP, at least 5 mmHg decrease in mean 24-h ambulatory systolic BP or at least 1 DDD reduction in antihypertensive medication without systolic BP increase) was lower compared to the first-in-human study: 53% vs. 83% at 3 months follow-up. The difference might be related to the heterogeneity of the patient population (i.e. the large variability in baseline BP) and the small sample size of this proof-of-principle study. Given the heterogeneous pathophysiology of primary hypertension and the varying contribution of sympathetic activation [28], a number of true non-responders could be expected. Accordingly, one would expect patients with high sympathetic activity to respond better to sympathetic-modulating treatment. Stratification on baseline MSNA, however, did not result in different BP responses. Patient response may also depend on the extent to which the MobiusHD increases vessel wall strain, which could differ from patient to patient, and may depend on the exact position of the MobiusHD device in the carotid sinus.

A strength of the present study is the use of microneurography, which is one of the most reliable but technically challenging methods to assess overall sympathetic activity [24-26]. Another strength is the implementation of a medication washout period which enabled us to perform baseline and 3-month measurements under the same conditions and with limited influence of antihypertensive drugs. At the same time, this may effect the generalizability of our findings, since effects were measured in the absence or in the presence of only one antihypertensive drug(s).

Limitations of this small, uncontrolled proof-of-principle study also need to be considered. These are very complex and challenging studies to perform in patients, as microneurography is time-consuming, the signal is easily affected, and in some patients the signal can ‘simply’ not be obtained. Although antihypertensive medications were discontinued, drug screening in blood or urine was not performed to confirm the absence of antihypertensive drugs. Another obvious limitation was the lack of statistical power which weakens our findings and conclusions. Moreover, the associations between EVBA and all study endpoints should be interpreted with caution in the view of the fact that this is a non-randomized study in which period effects, regression to the mean, Hawthorne effects and placebo effects come into play. The unbiased effect on BP was being studied in two randomized, sham-controlled trials: the pivotal CALM-2 trial (Controlling And Lowering blood pressure with the MobiusHD) studying the effect of EVBA in patients with resistant hypertension on a confirmed stable antihypertensive medication regimen; and CALM-START (Controlling And Lowering blood pressure with the MobiusHD–STudying effects in A Randomized Trial), studying the effect of EVBA in patients in absence of antihypertensive medication. Due to difficulties in patient inclusion, these studies currently stopped enrolling. A final limitation of the present study is that sympathetic activity was only measured by MSNA and not by other direct or indirect measures such as norepinephrine spill-over or peripheral vascular resistance. We also did not measure volume changes and changes in cardiac output which can affect BP and might explain the absence of correlation between changes in sympathetic activity and BP.

In conclusion, in this proof-of-principle study which lacks the power to draw firm inferences, EVBA did not significantly effect sympathetic activity in patients with resistant hypertension. The observation that EVBA did not impair baroreflex sensitivity or cardiovascular responses to a sympathetic stimulus suggests that BP compensatory mechanisms are not undermined by MobiusHD implantation which is perhaps the most important finding of this study.

TREND statement checklist.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Detailed description of study in- and exclusion criteria.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Extensive summary study protocol.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Extensive summary sub-study protocol.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Schematic overview of the measurement setting.

BP = blood pressure, MSNA = muscle sympathetic nerve activity, CPT = cold pressor test.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

MSNA recording of one of the participants (patient 8, baseline).

Heart rate (I), beat-to-beat blood pressure (II), integrated MSNA (III), filtered MSNA (IV), and pressure curve of the mouth pressure applied during the Valsalva manoeuver (V). The part between the vertical dashed lines represents early phase II of the Valsalva manoeuver.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Number of patients excluded per outcome variable and reasons for exclusion.

N represents the number of patients excluded from the 13 patients who underwent 3-month follow-up measurements. BRS = baroreflex sensitivity, cBRS = cardiac BRS, xBRS = cross-correlation BRS, sBRS = sympathetic BRS, T50 = diastolic BP at which 50% of the heartbeats is associated with a burst, CPT = cold pressor test, MAP = mean arterial pressure, HR = heart rate, NA = not applicable, BP = blood pressure, SBP = systolic BP, DBP = diastolic BP, HRV = heart rate variability, LF = low frequency, HF = high frequency.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Individual patient characteristics, MSNA and BP at baseline, and individual changes after 3 months.

DM 2 = diabetes mellitus type 2, CVD = history of cardiovascular disease, RDN = history of renal denervation, mn b2b = mean beat-to-beat, f = female, m = male, A = ACE-inhibitor or angiotensin-II-receptor blocker, C = calcium antagonist, D = diuretic, MRA = mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, α = alpha blocker, β = beta blocker, R-i = direct renin inhibitor.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Overview of the predefined safety outcomes that occured within 3 months after implantation.

*Only those related or possibly related to the device or procedure or with relatedness unknown. ˟Decrease in eGFR of >10%.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

31 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-24916

Endovascular baroreflex amplification and the effect on sympathetic nerve activity in patients with resistant hypertension: a proof-of-principle study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Spiering,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 15 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michiel Voskuil, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study.

As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper:

i) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started);

ii) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

4. Please include captions for ALL your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[Monique E.A.M. van Kleef was indirectly paid from a research grant by Vascular Dynamics, Inc. Karsten Heusser, P. Liam Oey, Jens Tank, André Diedrich and Peter J. Blankestijn report no conflict of interest. Jens Jordan served as consultant for Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi, Orexigen, Riemser, Vivus, and is cofounder of Eternygen GmbH. Bryan Williams has received honoraria for consultancy from Vascular Dynamics Inc. W. Spiering is a consultant for Vascular Dynamics and has received a research grant from Vascular Dynamics.].

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A proof-of-principle study (n=14/10 evaluable) was conducted to explore potential mechanisms for lowering blood pressure. The effects of endovascular baroreflex amplification (EVBA) on muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) and baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS) were investigated. The primary outcome was change in MSNA. Secondary outcomes were change in baroreflex sensitivity (BRS), cardiovascular responses to a sympathetic stimulus, BP, heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV). The results are primarily descriptive.

Minor revisions:

1- Line 223: Report occurrences of adverse events with both frequencies and percentages. To provide additional clarity, consider providing a table which summarizes the adverse events.

2- Provide percentages which correspond to the number of patients out of the total evaluated. For example, consider Line 257, indicate that 6 of 10 is 60%.

3- Line 262: Explain how the following statement can be justified statistically. “The trend to decrease in MSNA could not be explained by change in quality of the MSNA measurement, since MSNA signal-to-noise ratio at baseline and 3 months post-implantation were similar.”

Reviewer #2: Van Kleef and colleagues investigated the effects of a novel blood pressure lowering device (Mobius HD) on muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) and baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS). Mobius HD is a self-expanding nitinol implant that is delivered percutaneously to the internal carotid sinus using an intravascular delivery system. The objective of the implant is to amplify the baroreceptor signaling resulting in reduction of blood pressure through vasodilation. The manuscript is well written and easy to follow and provides us with interesting data. The authors should be congratulated on their work. However, I have some concerns regarding several aspects of the paper that require revisions.

1. This is an ancillary investigation of the CALM-DIEM study. The investigators published their data of the first-in-human trial of this implant in patients with resistant hypertension (Spiering et al. Lancet, 2017). This device was associated with a reduction in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 21/12 mmHg at six months after implantation.

2. The number of patients included in the study seems to be insufficient to draw firm conclusions.

3. The authors report that they did not find a correlation between change in MSNA and BP after Mobius HD implantation. Current study needs to be discussed in light of publications such as Hoogerwaard et al (Clin Res Cardiol, 2019). They reported on the effects of high frequency electrical stimulation of renal nerves on heart rate variability, a non-invasive tool for autonomic nervous system function. Before RDN, high frequency electrical stimulation induced changes in heart rate variability suggesting alteration in autonomic balance with an increased sympathetic autonomic balance tone. Whereas, after RDN, the changes in heart rate variability reflected a lower sympathetic tone and greater parasympathetic tone after RDN.

4. Continuation and discontinuation of beta blockers during follow up need to be reported in conjunction with the statement of changes in MSNA and BRS. Hoogerwaard et al. (Clin Res Cardiol, 2019), reported that changes in heart rate variability were 1.5 times greater in patients off-beta-blockade, and no longer significant in patients on-beta-blockade and in a small group of patients with diabetes mellitus. Did you correct for these potential confounders?

5. While the results of this study are intriguing, it is important to underline that this is a sub-study of a previously published study that lacks power with the limited of patients in the current study weakening the findings and conclusions. The data and the findings are interesting and mostly hypothesis generating.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Jun 2021

Dear Dr. Voskuil,

We are pleased to submit the revised version of our manuscript ”Endovascular baroreflex amplification and the effect on sympathetic nerve activity in patients with resistant hypertension: a proof-of-principle study” after the valuable comments raised by the reviewers. This letter contains a point-by-point response to the issues raised by them.

Journal Requirements

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Fig 2, S1 Fig and S2 Fig have been edited to meet the figure size requirements.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

The reference list has been reviewed and is correct.

3. As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper: i) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started); ii) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

We added the reasons for our delay and confirmation that all trials are registered to the Methods section, lines 98-101: “Because of its small size and the enrolment of patients in a single center only, the present sub-study was initially not registered with the main study. The sub-study was added after enrolment of the participants started. We confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this intervention are registered.”

4. Please include captions for all your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly.

Captions for all Supporting Information files are included at the end of the manuscript.

5. Thank you for stating the following “Monique E.A.M. van Kleef … Vascular Dynamics” in the Competing Interests section. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.”

We confirm that the competing interests stated do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. You may add the statement "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials” to our Competing Interests section.

Reviewer 1

1) Line 223: Report occurrences of adverse events with both frequencies and percentages. To provide additional clarity, consider providing a table which summarizes the adverse events.

In line 227-228 we added “and percentage of the total study population”. A table summarizing the adverse events is added to the Supporting Information in S3 Table.

2) Provide percentages which correspond to the number of patients out of the total evaluated. For example, consider Line 257, indicate that 6 of 10 is 60%.

The percentages corresponding to the number of patients evaluated were added to:

- Line 261: (60%)

- Line 263: (80%)

- Line 299: (69%)

- Line 305: (7%)

- Line 312: (14%)

- Line 317: , 21%

- Line 317: , 14%

- Line 317: , 7%

- Line 318: , 7%

- Line 318: , 7%

- Line 319: , 7%

- Line 331: (60%)

- Line 331: (80%)

3) Line 262: Explain how the following statement can be justified statistically. “The trend to decrease in MSNA could not be explained by change in quality of the MSNA measurement, since MSNA signal-to-noise ratio at baseline and 3 months post-implantation were similar.”

Thank you for this comment, we realize that this statement needs some more explanation. In a situation with a relatively high level of noise (a low signal-to-noise ratio) it is more difficult for the software to distinguish between peaks caused by noise and peaks caused by the mechanism we are interested in: sympathetic nerve activity. Theoretically the level of noise could be lower the second measurement due to training or habituation. Therefore, we only included measurements with a signal-to-noise ratio of >2 [1] and evaluated whether the mean signal-to-noise ratio at baseline differed from the mean signal-to-noise ratio at 3 months. Since this is an ‘exploratory’ analysis in a proof-of-principle study that already lacks power to show a significant change in the primary endpoint (MSNA), we believe there is no additional value in statistically testing the difference in mean measurement quality.

Reviewer 2

1) This is an ancillary investigation of the CALM-DIEM study. The investigators published their data of the first-in-human trial of this implant in patients with resistant hypertension (Spiering et al. Lancet, 2017). This device was associated with a reduction in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 21/12 mmHg at six months after implantation.

We published the 6-month data of the European cohort of the first-in-human study (CALM-FIM: Controlling And Lowering blood pressure with MobiusHD – First In Man, NCT01831895) in 2017. Publication of the 3-year follow-up data of both the American and European cohorts of the CALM-FIM study is expected soon. In the present manuscript we present a sub-study of a second trial investigating the effects in an uncontrolled design: CALM-DIEM (Controlling And Lowering blood pressure with MobiusHD – Defining Efficacy Markers, NCT02827032). The CALM-DIEM sub-study was specifically designed to investigate the mechanism-of-action of EVBA.

2) The number of patients included in the study seems to be insufficient to draw firm conclusions.

Together with the uncontrolled design of the study, the small number of patients is indeed one of the major limitations of this work. We have based the population size on a sample size calculation assuming the effect size to be greater and the variation to be smaller than we actually observed. Therefore, one might conclude that this study was underpowered. However, also the small proportion of blood pressure responders and the modest blood pressure changes observed in this study, may provide an explanation for the lack of a significant effect on sympathetic nerve activity. Indeed, all these factors impede us to draw definite conclusions. We discuss these limitations in lines 333-338 and 391-393 of the Discussion.

3) The authors report that they did not find a correlation between change in MSNA and BP after Mobius HD implantation. Current study needs to be discussed in light of publications such as Hoogerwaard et al (Clin Res Cardiol, 2019). They reported on the effects of high frequency electrical stimulation of renal nerves on heart rate variability, a non-invasive tool for autonomic nervous system function. Before RDN, high frequency electrical stimulation induced changes in heart rate variability suggesting alteration in autonomic balance with an increased sympathetic autonomic balance tone. Whereas, after RDN, the changes in heart rate variability reflected a lower sympathetic tone and greater parasympathetic tone after RDN.

Thank you for referring to this interesting article providing more insight into the mechanism by which renal denervation reduces the exaggerated blood pressure response to sympathetic stimulation. The study by Hoogerwaard et al confirms that the renal nerve stimulation-induced effect on blood pressure is reduced after renal denervation and shows that this can be explained by a change in the sympathovagal balance toward a higher parasympathetic tone. We incorporated this interesting finding into our discussion “The effects of antihypertensive treatment on HRV have also been studied in patients treated with renal denervation. After renal denervation, the LF/HF ratio in response to renal nerve stimulation decreased significantly due to a decrease in the LF component (reflecting sympathetic tone) and an increase in the HF component (reflecting parasympathetic tone).” (lines 355-359).

In our proof-of-principle study we also investigated whether the BP response to a sympathetic stimulus (the cold pressor test) changed after treatment with EVBA. We observed that BP response to the cold pressor test remained unchanged after EVBA. Unfortunately, we did not evaluate changes in HRV evoked by the cold pressor test.

It is not quite possible to make a direct comparison between the change in BP response and change in HRV reflecting a lower sympathetic tone in the study by Hoogerwaard et al, and the correlation between change in MSNA reflecting sympathetic tone and change BP in our study. First, Hoogerwaard et al investigated the change in the renal nerve stimulation-induced effect on BP while we evaluated the change in non-induced BP after treatment. Second, Hoogerwaard et al relate the mean change in HRV to the mean change in the renal nerve stimulation-induced effect on BP, while we correlated individual changes in MSNA to individual changes in BP.

4) Continuation and discontinuation of beta blockers during follow up need to be reported in conjunction with the statement of changes in MSNA and BRS. Hoogerwaard et al. (Clin Res Cardiol, 2019), reported that changes in heart rate variability were 1.5 times greater in patients off-beta-blockade, and no longer significant in patients on-beta-blockade and in a small group of patients with diabetes mellitus. Did you correct for these potential confounders?

This is an interesting statement since beta blockers could blunt the effect on sympathetic activity. Therefore, beta blocker use could be an effect modifier in the association between EVBA and sympathetic activity. There are two reasons why we could not stratify our analyses into patients with or without beta blockers. Per protocol patients were instructed to taper and discontinue beta blockers in the four to two weeks before study measurements were performed. The length of this washout period ensures that sympathetic and cardiovascular measurements were not affected by beta blockers. Furthermore, there was only one patient with a beta blocker included in the study. Since this patient was excluded from the analysis due to missing data at 3 months, there were no patients previously using beta blockers to be analyzed.

5) While the results of this study are intriguing, it is important to underline that this is a sub-study of a previously published study that lacks power with the limited of patients in the current study weakening the findings and conclusions. The data and the findings are interesting and mostly hypothesis generating.

This is indeed a sub-study of a previously registered study, the CALM DIEM study (Controlling And Lowering blood pressure with MobiusHD – Defining Efficacy Markers, NCT02827032). We would like to emphasize that this is not a post-hoc analysis of a previously published study. The endpoints of the present study were determined before the sub-study enrolled any patients. The study that has been published was our first-in-man study, CALM FIM (Controlling And Lowering blood pressure with MobiusHD – First In Man, NCT01831895).

We agree that the small sample size precludes us from drawing firm conclusions, and that the findings of this study are mostly hypothesis generating. To emphasize this study limitation we added two lines to our discussion: “which weakens our findings and conclusions” (line 392-393) and “which lacks the power to draw firm inferences” (line 407).

We hope that this rebuttal letter clarifies our thoughts and the decisions we made. We believe the revisions have improved the transparency of our results and the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, we hope you will reconsider publication of our paper in PLOS ONE.

We are looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of the co-authors,

Wilko Spiering, MD PhD

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_20210603.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Oct 2021

Endovascular baroreflex amplification and the effect on sympathetic nerve activity in patients with resistant hypertension: a proof-of-principle study

PONE-D-20-24916R1

Dear Dr. Spiering,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michiel Voskuil, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors adequately addressed the issues raised by the reviewers. The manuscript improved significantly after the revisions. No further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

8 Nov 2021

PONE-D-20-24916R1

Endovascular baroreflex amplification and the effect on sympathetic nerve activity in patients with resistant hypertension: a proof-of-principle study

Dear Dr. Spiering:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michiel Voskuil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE