Sham or no sham control: that is the question in trials of renal denervation for resistant hypertension. A systematic meta-analysis

Controversies in Hypertension IV: Renal Denervation

Renal denervation is not a cure for hypertension. Although more recent sham-controlled trials were positive, a significant minority of patients in each trial were unresponsive. The optimal patient or patients need to be defined. Combined systolic/diastolic hypertension appears more responsive than isolated systolic hypertension. It remains uncertain whether patients with comorbidities associated with higher adrenergic tone should be targeted, including obesity, diabetes, sleep apnea, and chronic kidney disease. No biomarker can adequately predict response. A key to a successful response is the adequacy of denervation, which currently cannot be assessed in real time. It is uncertain what is the optimal denervation methodology: radiofrequency, ultrasound, or ethanol injection. Radiofrequency requires targeting the distal main renal artery plus major branches and accessory arteries. Although denervation appears to be safe, conclusive data on quality of life, improved target organ damage, and reduced cardiovascular events/mortality are required before denervation can be generally recommended.

Renal denervation in the antihypertensive arsenal - knowns and known unknowns

Even though it has been more than a decade since renal denervation (RDN) was first used to treat hypertension and an intense effort on researching this therapy has been made, it is still not clear how RDN fits into the antihypertensive arsenal. There is no question that RDN lowers blood pressure (BP), it does so to an extent at best corresponding to one antihypertensive drug. The procedure has an excellent safety record. However, it remains clinically impossible to predict whose BP responds to RDN and whose does not. Long-term efficacy data on BP reduction are still unconvincing despite the recent results in the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial; experimental studies indicate that reinnervation is occurring after RDN. Although BP is an acceptable surrogate endpoint, there is complete lack of outcome data with RDN. Clear indications for RDN are lacking although patients with resistant hypertension, those with documented increase in activity of the sympathetic system and perhaps those who desire to take fewest medication may be considered.

Intravascular Renal Denervation Reduces Ambulatory and Office Blood Pressure in Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of intravascular renal denervation (RDN) in patients with essential hypertension, especially to determine the magnitude of blood pressure (BP) reduction with RDN therapy using second-generation catheters.

METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify randomized sham-controlled trials from inception through August 2021. The endpoints were changes in 24-h ambulatory BP or office BP. This meta-analysis was performed by calculating the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model when the I2 index was <50%. A fixed-effects model was used when the I2 index was ≥50%.

RESULTS

A total of 1,297 patients were included in 8 randomized, sham-controlled trials in this meta-analysis. Intravascular RDN reduced 24-h ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) -3.02 (WMD, 95% CI: -4.95, -1.10, p < 0.01) and diastolic BP (DBP) -1.66 (WMD, 95% CI: -2.44, -0.88, p < 0.001) mm Hg, respectively. In the studies using first-generation catheters, the WMDs of 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP changes between intravascular RDN and sham control were -2.67 (95% CI: -5.08, -0.27; p < 0.05; I2 = 0%, p = 0.53) and -0.82 (95% CI: -2.19, 0.56; p > 0.05; I2 = 0%, p = 0.64) mm Hg. In the studies using second-generation catheters, the WMDs of 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP changes between intravascular RDN and sham control were -3.14 (95% CI: -5.94, -0.33, p < 0.05; I2 = 71%, p = 0.008) and -2.06 (95% CI: -3.02, -1.11, p < 0.001; I2 = 50%, p = 0.09) mm Hg. Intravascular RDN using second-generation catheters reduced office SBP -6.30 (WMD, 95% CI: -7.67, -4.93, p < 0.001; I2 = 43%, p = 0.14) and DBP -3.88 (WMD, 95% CI: -4.44, -3.33, p < 0.001; I2 = 42%, p = 0.14) mm Hg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravascular RDN using second-generation catheters reduces ambulatory and office BP in patients with essential hypertension. The selection of appropriate hypertensive patients may be the major challenge for the performance of intravascular RDN in routine clinical practice.

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.

Renal denervation: where do we stand and what is the relevance to the nephrologist?

Catheter-based renal denervation to reduce high blood pressure (BP) has received well-deserved attention after a recent series of sham-controlled trials reported significant antihypertensive efficacy and very favourable tolerability and safety of the intervention. This emerging treatment option is of high relevance to nephrologists. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at elevated risk of cardiovascular adverse events and often present with hypertension, which is very difficult to control with medication. Renal denervation promises a new tool to reduce BP and to prevent loss of renal function in this population. The current review considers the role of the kidney and neurohormonal activation in the development of hypertension and the rationale for renal denervation. The current state of the evidence for the effectiveness and tolerability of the procedure is considered from the nephrologists’ perspective, with a focus on the potential future role of renal denervation in the management of CKD patients with hypertension.

Sham-Controlled Randomized Trials of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Patients With Hypertension

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data regarding the relative effectiveness of renal sympathetic denervation (RSD) in patients with hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the blood pressure (BP) response after RSD in sham-controlled randomized trials.

METHODS

Databases were searched through June 30, 2018. Randomized trials (RCTs) with ≥50 patients comparing catheter-based RSD with a sham control were included. The authors calculated summary treatment estimates as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis included 977 patients from 6 trials. The reduction in 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) was significantly greater for patients treated with RSD than sham procedure (WMD -3.65 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.33 to -1.98; p < 0.001). Compared with sham, RSD was also associated with a significant decrease in daytime ASBP (WMD -4.07 mm Hg, 95% CI: -6.46 to -1.68; p < 0.001), office systolic BP (WMD -5.53 mm Hg, 95% CI: -8.18 to -2.87; p < 0.001), 24-h ambulatory diastolic BP (WMD -1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.06 to -0.35; p = 0.01), daytime ambulatory diastolic BP (WMD -1.57 mm Hg, 95% CI: -2.73 to -0.42; p = 0.008), and office diastolic BP (WMD -3.37 mm Hg, 95% CI: -4.86 to -1.88; p < 0.001). Compared with first-generation trials, a significantly greater reduction in daytime ASBP was observed with RSD in second-generation trials (6.12 mm Hg vs. 2.14 mm Hg; p interaction = 0.04); however, this interaction was not significant for 24-h ASBP (4.85 mm Hg vs. 2.23 mm Hg; p interaction = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

RSD significantly reduced blood pressure compared with sham control. Results of this meta-analysis should inform the design of larger, pivotal trials to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of RSD in patients with hypertension.

Effect of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation on Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) for the treatment of uncontrolled hypertension by conducting a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for clinical studies between January 1, 2009, and July 16, 2018. Studies that evaluated the effect of RDN on uncontrolled hypertension were identified. The primary endpoints were changes in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (BP) and office systolic BP. The secondary endpoints included changes in 24-hour ambulatory diastolic BP, office diastolic BP, and major adverse events.

RESULTS

After a literature search and detailed evaluation, 12 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1539 individuals were included in the quantitative analysis. Pooled analyses indicated that RDN was associated with a significantly greater reduction of 24-hour systolic BP (mean difference [MD], -4.02 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.49 to -2.56; P<.001) and office systolic BP (MD, -8.93 mm Hg; 95% CI, -14.03 to -3.83; P<.001) than controls. Similarly, RDN significantly reduced 24-hour diastolic BP (MD, -2.05 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.05 to -1.05; P<.001) and office diastolic BP (MD, -4.49 mm Hg; 95% CI, -6.46 to -2.52; P<.001). RDN was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse events (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.57; P=.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter-based RDN was associated with a significant BP-lowering benefit without increasing major adverse events.

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

Renal denervation (RDN) is a catheter-based ablation procedure designed to treat resistant hypertension (RH). The objective of our study is to determine the effect of RDN on blood pressure and renal function in patients with RH in comparison to medical therapy alone. We performed an extensive literature search for randomized control trials (RCT) reporting office and 24 hr. blood pressure changes and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at baseline and 6 months. We calculated a weighted standardized mean difference of blood pressure and renal outcomes between RDN and control groups using random effects models. Our search yielded 608 studies of which we included 15 studies for the final analysis. A total of 857 patients were treated with RDN and 616 patients treated with medical therapy ± sham procedure. Only 5 studies were double-blinded RCT with sham control. The adjusted standardized mean difference in the change in office based systolic and diastolic pressures (p = 0.18; p = 0.14); 24 hr. systolic and diastolic pressures (p = 0.20; p = 0.18); and eGFR (p = 0.20) from baseline to 6 months is statistically insignificant with significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis showed that among sham controlled trials, 24 hr. systolic blood pressure showed a modest but statistically significant benefit favoring renal denervation in patients with RH. Our meta-analysis of 15 RCTs showed no significant benefit of RDN on blood pressure control in patients with resistant hypertension. Subgroup analysis of sham control studies showed a modest benefit in 24 hr. systolic blood pressure at 6 months with RDN.

Catheter-based renal denervation in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the absence of antihypertensive medications (SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED): a randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial

BACKGROUND

Previous randomised renal denervation studies did not show consistent efficacy in reducing blood pressure. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications.

METHODS

SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED was a multicentre, international, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Patients were enrolled at 21 centres in the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Eligible patients were drug-naive or discontinued their antihypertensive medications. Patients with an office systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150 mm Hg or greater and less than 180 mm Hg, office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90 mm Hg or greater, and a mean 24-h ambulatory SBP of 140 mm Hg or greater and less than 170 mm Hg at second screening underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments. The primary endpoint, change in 24-h blood pressure at 3 months, was compared between groups. Drug surveillance was done to ensure patient compliance with absence of antihypertensive medication. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed at 3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439749.

FINDINGS

Between June 25, 2015, and Jan 30, 2017, 353 patients were screened. 80 patients were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) or sham control (n=42) and followed up for 3 months. Office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 3 months in the renal denervation group: 24-h SBP -5·5 mm Hg (95% CI -9·1 to -2·0; p=0·0031), 24-h DBP -4·8 mm Hg (-7·0 to -2·6; p<0·0001), office SBP -10·0 mm Hg (-15·1 to -4·9; p=0·0004), and office DBP -5·3 mm Hg (-7·8 to -2·7; p=0·0002). No significant changes were seen in the sham-control group: 24-h SBP -0·5 mm Hg (95% CI -3·9 to 2·9; p=0·7644), 24-h DBP -0·4 mm Hg (-2·2 to 1·4; p=0·6448), office SBP -2·3 mm Hg (-6·1 to 1·6; p=0·2381), and office DBP -0·3 mm Hg (-2·9 to 2·2; p=0·8052). The mean difference between the groups favoured renal denervation for 3-month change in both office and 24-h blood pressure from baseline: 24-h SBP -5·0 mm Hg (95% CI -9·9 to -0·2; p=0·0414), 24-h DBP -4·4 mm Hg (-7·2 to -1·6; p=0·0024), office SBP -7·7 mm Hg (-14·0 to -1·5; p=0·0155), and office DBP -4·9 mm Hg (-8·5 to -1·4; p=0·0077). Baseline-adjusted analyses showed similar findings. There were no major adverse events in either group.

INTERPRETATION

Results from SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED provide biological proof of principle for the blood-pressure-lowering efficacy of renal denervation.

FUNDING

Medtronic.

Spironolactone in cardiovascular disease: an expanding universe?

Spironolactone has been marketed for over half a century as a ‘potassium-sparing diuretic’, used primarily in patients with ascites. With the realization that primary aldosteronism is the most common (5-13%) form of secondary hypertension, it has become widely used as a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. More recently, in the wake of the RALES trial, spironolactone in addition to standard therapy has been shown to be very beneficial in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Despite the failure of the TOPCAT trial, spironolactone is being increasingly used in diastolic heart failure (i.e. with a preserved ejection fraction). The third currently accepted role for spironolactone is in hypertension resistant to three conventional antihypertensives including a diuretic, where it has been proven to be effective, in contra-distinction to renal artery denervation. Finally, brief consideration will be given to ‘areas in waiting’ – pulmonary hypertension/fibrosis, cancer – where spironolactone may play very useful roles.