Renal denervation in the treatment of resistant arterial hypertension

Frequency of renal artery stenosis after renal denervation in patients with resistant arterial hypertension

Catheter-based ablation of nerves in the adventitia of renal arteries (renal artery denervation [RAD]) using radiofrequency energy can reduce blood pressure (BP) in patients with resistant arterial hypertension (RAH). Occurrence of renal artery stenosis after RAD is still an important concern. We systematically investigated the renal artery anatomy using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) angiography in a consecutive series of patients 6 months after RAD. Patients with RAH were treated by RAD after exclusion of secondary causes of hypertension. RAH was defined by a mean systolic office BP >160 mm Hg. Renal artery imaging was performed 6 months after RAD by MRI angiography. In case of any contraindication for MRI, a CT angiography was performed. The primary end point was the incidence of significant renal artery stenosis (≥70% lumen diameter reduction). RAD was performed in 76 patients, and evaluation of renal artery anatomy by MRI (n = 66; 87%) or CT angiography (n = 10; 13%) was performed in all patients 6 months after RAD. We found no renal artery stenosis but 2 cases of new nonsignificant stenosis (50% TO 69% lumen diameter reduction). In responders, mean systolic office BP reduction was -30 mm Hg (p <0.001) and mean systolic 24-hour BP reduction was -18 mm Hg (p <0.001). In conclusion, the incidence of significant renal artery stenosis 6 months after RAD seems to be very low. However, late-onset development of nonsignificant renal artery narrowing cannot be excluded in some patients and should be anticipated in the case of RAH relapse or worsening of renal function after successful RAD.

Influence of pseudo-resistance on the effect of renal denervation on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure levels

BACKGROUND

Renal denervation (RDN) is a promising treatment option in addition to medical antihypertensive treatment in patients suffering from resistant hypertension. Despite the growing interest in RDN, the negative result of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial led to a debate on the efficacy of RDN.

METHODS

We systematically investigated the effects of RDN, evaluated by 24-hr ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM), in a consecutive series of patients with resistant hypertension, which was defined by a mean office systolic blood pressure (SBP) >160 mm Hg (>150 mm Hg in patients with diabetes). Patients with a mean 24-hr SBP of less than 130 mm Hg at baseline were classified as pseudo-resistant, while all other patients were classified as true-resistant. After six months, we analyzed the response rates in true-resistant and in pseudo-resistant patients, respectively, by the means of 24-hr ABPM. Thereby, patients with a reduction of more than 5 mm Hg in 24-hr SBP were classified as responders.

RESULTS

RDN was performed in 106 patients. By 24-hr ABPM, 20 patients (18.9%) were classified as pseudo-resistant patients. In this cohort, we only found two responders (response rate 10%) six months after RDN. By contrast, in true-resistant patients, the response rate was almost 60% and the mean BP reduction was -18.6/-9 mm Hg in 24-hr ABPM.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significant BP reduction in almost 60% of patients with true-resistant hypertension, but only in 10% in patients with pseudo-resistant hypertension. According to our results, patient selection seems to be crucial for acceptable response rates after RDN.