Renal Denervation for Resistant Hypertension in the contemporary era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Effects of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several sham-controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) with mixed outcomes. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of all randomized, sham-controlled trials investigating RDN with first- and second-generation devices in hypertension.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for eligible trials. Outcomes included both efficacy (24-hour and office systolic [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and safety (all-cause death, vascular complication, renal artery stenosis >70%, hypertensive crisis) of RDN. We performed a study-level, pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis of the summary data.

RESULTS

Ten trials comprising 2478 patients with hypertension while being either off or on treatment were included. Compared with sham, RDN reduced 24-hour and office systolic blood pressure by 4.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 2.7 to 6.1; P<0.00001) and 6.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.6 to 9.7; P<0.0001), respectively. The 24-hour and office diastolic blood pressure paralleled these findings (-2.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -3.6 to -1.5]; P<0.00001; -3.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.4 to -1.6]; P=0.0003). There was no difference in 24-hour and office systolic blood pressure reduction between trials with and without concomitant antihypertensive medication (P for interaction, 0.62 and 0.73, respectively). There was no relevant difference in vascular complications (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.57 to 5.0]; P=0.34), renal artery stenosis (odds ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.06 to 36.97]; P=0.80), hypertensive crisis (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.38]; P=0.26), and all-cause death (odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.34 to 9.20]; P=0.50) between RDN and sham groups. Change of renal function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate was comparable between groups (P for interaction, 0.84). There was significant heterogeneity between trials.

CONCLUSIONS

RDN safely reduces ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure versus a sham procedure in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medications.

Renal denervation for uncontrolled hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis examining multiple subgroups

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence available for renal denervation (RDN) in uncontrolled arterial hypertension. Twenty-five RCTs met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, and 16 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the random effects meta-analysis estimated a mean difference of -8.5 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -13.5 to -3.6] for office SBP, -3.6 mmHg (95% CI -5.2 to -2.0) for 24 h SBP and -3.9 mmHg (95% CI -5.6 to -2.2) for ambulatory daytime SBP in favour of RDN compared with control (medication and/or sham-only) at primary follow-up. Similarly favourable results were observed across a range of prespecified subgroup analyses, including treatment-resistant hypertension. This meta-analysis suggests that the use of RDN in uncontrolled hypertension leads to consistent reductions in blood pressure. Reductions appear to be statistically consistent in the presence or absence of medications and in populations resistant to the use of three medications.

Effects of catheter-based renal denervation in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Several sham-controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) with mixed outcomes.

Aim

To perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of all randomized, sham-controlled trials investigating RDN with first- and second-generation devices in hypertension.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library for eligible trials. Outcomes included both efficacy (24-hour and office systolic [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and safety (all-cause death, vascular complication, renal artery stenosis >70%, hypertensive crisis) of RDN. We performed a study-level, pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis of the summary data.

Results

Ten trials comprising 2,478 patients with hypertension while being either off- or on-treatment were included. Compared with sham, RDN reduced 24-hour and office systolic BP by 4.4 mmHg (95%CI -6.1, -2.7, p<0.00001) and 6.6 mmHg (95%CI -9.7, -3.6, p<0.0001), respectively. The 24-hour and office diastolic BP paralleled these findings (-2.6 mmHg, 95%CI - 3.6, -1.5, p<0.00001; -3.5 mmHg, 95%CI -5.4, -1.6, p=0.0003). There was no difference in 24-hour and office SBP reduction between trials with and without concomitant antihypertensive medication (p for interaction 0.62 and 0.73, respectively). There was no relevant difference concerning vascular complications (OR 1.69, 95%CI 0.57-5.0, p=0.34), renal artery stenosis (OR 1.50, 95%CI 0.06-36.97, p=0.80), hypertensive crisis (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.30-1.38, p=0.26) and all-cause death (OR 1.76, 95%CI 0.34-9.20, p=0.50) between RDN and sham groups. Change of renal function based on eGFR was comparable between groups (p for interaction 0.84). There was significant heterogeneity between trials.

Conclusions

RDN safely reduces ambulatory and office SBP/DBP vs. a sham procedure in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medication.

Clinical Perspective

What is new?Several sham-controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) with mixed outcomes.This comprehensive meta-analysis comprising 2,478 patients shows that irrespective of the utilized method (radiofrequency-, ultrasound-or alcohol-mediated), renal denervation effectively reduced ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure.Renal denervation exhibited no additional risk concerning vascular injury or renal function impairment.What are the clinical implications?This meta-analysis supports current guidelines/consensus statements that renal denervation represents an additive treatment option in carefully selected patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

Is Renal Denervation Effective in Treating Resistant Hypertension?

Resistant hypertension is diagnosed in patients whose blood pressure target is unmet despite the use of three or more antihypertensive medications. Systemic sympathetic hyperactivation is associated with the development of resistant hypertension. As the kidney is largely pervasive of the sympathetic nervous system renal denervation procedure was developed to control blood pressure by attenuating the renal and systemic sympathetic hyperactivity. Renal denervation is a minimally invasive procedure that uses radiofrequency or ultrasound energy waves to reduce the activity of the renal artery nerves. Previous clinical trials have shown conflicting results regarding the efficacy of the procedure. Symplicity HTN-1 and -2 trials showed effective blood pressure lowering results in the renal denervation group with a good safety profile. However, the Symplicity HTN-3 trial showed no difference in blood pressure lowering effect between the renal denervation and control Sham procedure groups. Notwithstanding, some recent clinical trials with Sham control and meta-analysis showed clinical benefits of renal denervation. Other clinical benefits of renal denervation include glucose control, cardiovascular protective effect, reduction of obstructive sleep apnea, and neuralgia control. A subset of patients with satisfactory blood pressure control response to the procedure may experience improved glucose control due to the overall reduced sympathetic activity and insulin resistance. Sympathetic activity control after renal denervation has cardioprotective effects, especially for those with arrhythmia and left ventricular hypertrophy. Also, renal denervation could be helpful in renalorigin pain control. Renal denervation is an effective, safe, non-invasive procedure with many clinical benefits beyond blood pressure control. Further development in the procedure technique and selection of target patients are needed for wider clinical use of renal denervation in resistant hypertension.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) role in hypertension: pathogenesis and promising therapeutics

Background

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-coding RNA molecules that play a crucial role in regulating various cellular processes, including cell proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis, and disease development. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of miRNAs in the development and progression of essential hypertension, a common form of high blood pressure that affects millions of individuals worldwide. The molecular mechanisms by which miRNAs regulate hypertension are complex and multifaceted. MiRNAs target the 3' untranslated regions of mRNA molecules, thereby regulating the synthesis of specific proteins involved in cardiovascular function. For instance, miRNAs are known to regulate the expression of genes involved in blood vessel tone, cardiac function, and inflammation. The growing body of research on miRNAs in hypertension has highlighted their potential as therapeutic targets for managing this condition. Studies have shown that miRNA-based therapies can modulate the expression of key genes involved in hypertension, leading to improvements in blood pressure and cardiovascular function. However, more research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms of miRNA-mediated hypertension and to develop effective therapeutic strategies.

Conclusions

In summary, this review highlights the current understanding of the role of miRNAs in essential hypertension, including their molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic applications. Further research is needed to fully understand the impact of miRNAs on hypertension and to develop new treatments for this common and debilitating condition.

Aerobic exercise improves central blood pressure and blood pressure variability among patients with resistant hypertension: results of the EnRicH trial

Central blood pressure (BP) and BP variability are associated with cardiovascular disease risk. However, the influence of exercise on these hemodynamic parameters is unknown among patients with resistant hypertension. The EnRicH (The Exercise Training in the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension) was a prospective, single-blinded randomized clinical trial (NCT03090529). Sixty patients were randomized to a 12-week aerobic exercise program or usual care. The outcome measures include central BP, BP variability, heart rate variability, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, and circulating cardiovascular disease risk biomarkers including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, angiotensin II, superoxide dismutase, interferon gamma, nitric oxide, and endothelial progenitor cells. Central systolic BP decreased by 12.22 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.88 to -22.57, P = 0.022) as did BP variability by 2.85 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.91 to -0.78, P = 0.008), in the exercise (n = 26) compared to the control group (n = 27). Interferon gamma -4.3 pg/mL (95%CI, -7.1 to -1.5, P = 0.003), angiotensin II -157.0 pg/mL (95%CI, -288.1 to -25.9, P = 0.020), and superoxide dismutase 0.4 pg/mL (95%CI, 0.1-0.6, P = 0.009) improved in the exercise compared to the control group. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, heart rate variability, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, nitric oxide, and endothelial progenitor cells were not different between groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, a 12-week exercise training program improved central BP and BP variability, and cardiovascular disease risk biomarkers in patients with resistant hypertension. These markers are clinically relevant as they are associated with target organ damage and increased cardiovascular disease risk and mortality.

The blood pressure response to acute exercise predicts the ambulatory blood pressure response to exercise training in patients with resistant hypertension: results from the EnRicH trial

Reports suggest that the blood pressure (BP) response to an acute bout of exercise is associated with the BP response to aerobic training in participants with elevated BP. These associations have not been tested among patients with resistant hypertension. This study aimed to determine whether the BP response to acute exercise predicts the 24-h ambulatory BP response to a 12-week exercise training program in patients with resistant hypertension (n = 26, aged 59.3 ± 8.2 years, 24-h ambulatory BP 127.4 ± 12.2/75.6 ± 7.8 mm Hg) who completed the exercise arm of the EnRicH trial. Ambulatory BP measurements were obtained before and after the exercise program to assess the chronic BP response. To assess acute BP changes, resting BP was measured before and 10 min after three exercise sessions in the third week of training and averaged. The resting systolic (9.4 ± 6.7, p < 0.001) and diastolic BP (1.9 ± 3.2, p = 0.005) were reduced after acute exercise. The 24-h systolic (6.2 ± 12.2, p = 0.015) and diastolic BP (4.4 ± 6.1, p = 0.001) were decreased after exercise training. The reductions in systolic BP after acute exercise were associated with the reductions in 24-h systolic BP after exercise training (ß = 0.538, adjusted r² = 0.260, P = 0.005). The reductions in diastolic BP after acute exercise (ß = 0.453, adjusted r² = 0.187) and baseline 24-h diastolic BP (ß = -0.459, adjusted r² = 0. 199) accounted for 38.6% (p = 0.008) of the 24-h diastolic BP response to exercise training. In conclusion, the magnitude of the BP response to acute exercise appears to predict the ambulatory BP response to exercise training among patients with resistant hypertension.

The Burden of Resistant Hypertension Across the World

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Resistant hypertension (R-HTN) is related to worse cardiovascular, renal outcomes, and death compared to non R-HTN. We aimed to review the burden of R-HTN across the world, focusing on its prevalence, associated factors and outcomes, and the impact of treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

R-HTN prevalence among hypertensive individuals varies around 10-20%, depending on the population and definition applied. R-HTN consistently relates to older age, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and obstructive sleep apnea - which are increasing in prevalence with global population aging. As such, R-HTN prevalence is also expected to rise. Infrequent use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to identify at higher risk individuals and poor adherence to treatment are still barriers in the approach of R-HTN. Available evidence suggests that 10-20% of patients with hypertension have R-HTN. However, the prevalence of true R-HTN using contemporaneous standardized definitions is still unknown. Novel strategies to address clinicians, patients and health system barriers to treatment inertia and adherence are fundamental to reduce the burden of R-HTN.

Renal denervation for resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Resistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, in the last decade renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 3 November 2020: Cochrane Hypertension's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (via CENTRAL) and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 15 eligible studies (1416 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; in the remaining studies, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding.  When compared to control, there was low-certainty evidence that renal denervation had little or no effect on the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (5 studies, 892 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95), unstable angina (3 studies, 270 participants; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.89) or hospitalisation (3 studies, 743 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.11). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, renal denervation may reduce 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (9 studies, 1045 participants; MD -5.29 mmHg, 95% CI -10.46 to -0.13), ABPM diastolic BP (8 studies, 1004 participants; MD -3.75 mmHg, 95% CI -7.10 to -0.39) and office diastolic BP (8 studies, 1049 participants; MD -4.61 mmHg, 95% CI -8.23 to -0.99). Conversely, this procedure had little or no effect on office systolic BP (10 studies, 1090 participants; MD -5.92 mmHg, 95% CI -12.94 to 1.10). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that renal denervation may not reduce serum creatinine (5 studies, 721 participants, MD 0.03 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.13) and may not increase the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (6 studies, 822 participants; MD -2.56 mL/min, 95% CI -7.53 to 2.42).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resistant hypertension, there is low-certainty evidence that renal denervation does not improve major cardiovascular outomes and renal function. Conversely, moderate-certainty evidence exists that it may improve 24h ABPM and diastolic office-measured BP. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardised procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.

Effect of Exercise Training on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Among Patients With Resistant Hypertension: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Limited evidence suggests exercise reduces blood pressure (BP) in individuals with resistant hypertension, a clinical population with low responsiveness to drug therapy.

Objective

To determine whether an aerobic exercise training intervention reduces ambulatory BP among patients with resistant hypertension.

Design, Settings, and Participants

The Exercise Training in the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension (EnRicH) trial is a prospective, 2-center, single-blinded randomized clinical trial performed at 2 hospital centers in Portugal from March 2017 to December 2019. A total of 60 patients with a diagnosis of resistant hypertension aged 40 to 75 years were prospectively enrolled and observed at the hospitals' hypertension outpatient clinic.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-week moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training program (exercise group) or a usual care control group. The exercise group performed three 40-minute supervised sessions per week in addition to usual care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The powered primary efficacy measure was 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP change from baseline. Secondary outcomes included daytime and nighttime ambulatory BP, office BP, and cardiorespiratory fitness.

Results

A total of 53 patients completed the study, including 26 in the exercise group and 27 in the control group. Of these, 24 (45%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.1 (8.7) years. Compared with the control group, among those in the exercise group, 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was reduced by 7.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -12.8 to -1.4; P = .02). Additionally, 24-hour ambulatory diastolic BP (-5.1 mm Hg; 95% CI, -7.9 to -2.3; P = .001), daytime systolic BP (-8.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, -14.3 to -2.5; P = .006), and daytime diastolic BP (-5.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, -9.0 to -2.4; P = .001) were reduced in the exercise group compared with the control group. Office systolic BP (-10.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, -17.6 to -2.5; P = .01) and cardiorespiratory fitness (5.05 mL/kg per minute of oxygen consumption; 95% CI, 3.5 to 6.6; P < .001) also improved in the exercise group compared with the control group.

Conclusions and Relevance

A 12-week aerobic exercise program reduced 24-hour and daytime ambulatory BP as well as office systolic BP in patients with resistant hypertension. These findings provide clinicians with evidence to embrace moderate-intensity aerobic exercise as a standard coadjutant therapy targeting this patient population.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03090529.

Current Status and Future Perspectives of Renal Denervation

Despite the availability of numerous antihypertensive medications, hypertension treatment and control rates remain low, and uncontrolled hypertension is well-known to be one of the most important cardiovascular risk factors. Endovascular catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) has been developed to be a complementary or alternative treatment option for patients who cannot take medication, poor adherence, or have resistant hypertension despite the use of maximal doses of medications. Recently, several randomized trials for evaluating the efficacy and safety of second-generation RDN devices consistently show solid evidence for their blood pressure-lowering efficacy. This review summarizes the current evidence and future perspectives of RDN.

Catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) therapy, a new procedure that uses radiofrequency ablation to interrupt efferent and afferent renal sympathetic nerve fibers, is a complementary or alternative treatment to antihypertensive medications for optimal control of blood pressure (BP). Although several single-arm early proof-of-concept studies showed significant BP reduction, the largest sham-controlled study using the first-generation RDN device (SYMPLICITY HTN-3) failed to significantly reduce BP in patients with resistant hypertension who were taking the guideline-based combination of antihypertensive medications. Since then, new devices and techniques have been developed to improve the efficacy and safety of RDN procedures. Sham-controlled trials using second-generation RDN devices (radiofrequency- and ultrasound-based) have provided solid evidence for their BP-lowering efficacy with and without the use of concomitant antihypertensive medication. Moreover, the safety profile of RDN in several registries and clinical trials appears to be excellent. This review summarizes the current evidence for RDN and discusses its current issues, future trials, Asian perspectives, and potential roles in both hypertension and other morbidities.

Optimizing Precision of Hypertension Care to Maximize Blood Pressure Control: A Pilot Study Utilizing a Smartphone App to Incorporate Plasma Renin Activity Testing

Only half of patients with hypertension (HTN) respond to any given antihypertensive medication. Heterogeneity in pathophysiologic pathways underlying HTN is a major contributor. Personalizing antihypertensive therapy could improve blood pressure (BP) reduction. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of pragmatic implementation of a personalized plasma renin activity (PRA)‐based smartphone app on improving BP reduction. Patients with untreated or treated but uncontrolled HTN were recruited. BP and PRA were measured at baseline with final BP measured at 6 months. Patient’s information was entered into the app and treatment recommendations were returned. Clinicians were at liberty to follow or disregard the app’s recommendations. BP levels and percent BP control among patients whose clinicians did and did not follow the app’s recommendations were compared using independent t‐test and Fisher’s exact test, respectively. Twenty‐nine European American patients were included (38% women) with mean age of 52 ± 9 years and median PRA of 1.3 ng/mL/hr (interquartile range 0.5–3.1 ng/mL/hr). Participants whose clinicians followed the app’s recommendations (n = 16, 55%) as compared with those whose clinicians did not (n = 13, 45%), had a greater reduction in 6‐month systolic BP (−15 ± 21 vs. −3 ± 21 mm Hg; adjusted‐P = 0.1) and diastolic BP (−8 ± 8 vs. −1 ± 8 mm Hg; adjusted‐P = 0.04). BP control at 6 months tended to be greater among patients whose clinicians accepted the app’s recommendations vs. those whose clinicians did not (63% vs. 23%, P = 0.06). This pilot study demonstrates that acceptance of the app’s recommendations was associated with a greater BP reduction. Future studies to confirm these pilot findings are warranted.

Effects of a comprehensive intervention on hypertension control in Chinese employees working in universities based on mixed models

We conducted a comprehensive intensive intervention for hypertension patients working in universities or colleges. From July 2015 to March in 2016, 220 hypertension subjects were recruited, with 165 cases in intensive intervention group and 55 in standard intervention group. After 24 months of intervention, 208 ones including of 157 in intensive intervention group and 51 in standard intervention group were included in the final analysis. The patients in standard intervention group were given routine intervention, which mainly including of drug treatment and health education. The patients in intervention group were given comprehensive intensive intervention in addition to routine intervention, including follow-up management of hypertension, emotional, lifestyle intervention and else. The study and experimental protocols were approved by institutional review board of Zhejiang Hospital and Fu Wai Hospital and registered (ChiCTR-ECS-14004641, date of registration: May 8, 2014). After 2 years, compared with the standard intervention group, SBP/DBP in the intensive intervention group decreased by 3.7/4 mmHg and BP control rate increased by 8.9%, and the unhealthy behaviors and life quality including tension and pressure were also improved in the intensive intervention group. We used mixed effect model to analyze the intervention effect which could solve the problems of missing values and correlation. The intensive intervention of hypertension control including follow-up management, emotional and lifestyle intervention in occupational places could promote the development of the prevention, treatment and control of hypertension among staff in colleges and universities.

Is renal denervation still a treatment option in cardiovascular disease?

The role of renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) has been the topic of ongoing debate ever since the impressive initial results. The rationale of RDN is strong and supported by non-clinical studies, which lies in uncoupling the autonomic nervous crosstalk between the kidneys and the central nervous system. Since we know that cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension, atrial, ventricular arrhythmias and heart failure (HF) are related to sympathetic (over)activity, modulation of the renal nerve activity appears to be a reasonable and attractive therapeutic target in these patients. This review will focus on the existing evidence and potential future perspectives for RDN as treatment option in cardiovascular disease.