Late outcomes of renal denervation are more favorable than early ones. Facts or fancies?

NDT Plus Pub Date : 2023-09-20 DOI:10.1093/ckj/sfad231
Alexandre Persu, Maria S Stoenoiu, Frédéric Maes, Reinhold Kreutz, Giuseppe Mancia, Sverre E Kjeldsen
{"title":"Late outcomes of renal denervation are more favorable than early ones. Facts or fancies?","authors":"Alexandre Persu, Maria S Stoenoiu, Frédéric Maes, Reinhold Kreutz, Giuseppe Mancia, Sverre E Kjeldsen","doi":"10.1093/ckj/sfad231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Following second-generation randomized trials, there is evidence that renal denervation (RDN) decreases blood pressure (BP), although to a lesser extent than suggested in the initial controlled and observational studies. The recent publication of the 36-month follow-up of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial has raised expectations, suggesting increasing, late benefits of the procedure, despite initially negative results. These findings come after those obtained at 36 months in the sham-controlled trial SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and in the Global Symplicity Registry. However, they are susceptible to biases inherent in observational studies (after unblinding for sham-control) and non-random, substantial attrition of treatment groups at 36 months, and used interpolation of missing BPs. More importantly, in SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and Symplicity HTN-3, long-term BP changes in patients from the initial RDN group were compared with those in a heterogeneous control group, including both control patients who did not benefit from RDN and patients who eventually crossed over to RDN. In crossover patients, the last BP before RDN was imputed to subsequent follow-up. In Symplicity HTN-3, this particular approach led to the claim of increasing long-term benefits of RDN. However, comparison of BP changes in patients from the RDN group and control patients who did not undergo RDN, without imputation of BPs from crossover patients, does not support this view. The good news is that despite the suggestion of sympathetic nerve regrowth after RDN in some animal models, there is no strong signal in favour of a decreasing effect of RDN over time, up to 24 or even 36 months. Still, current data do not support a long-term increase in the effect of RDN and the durability of RDN-related BP reduction remains to be formally demonstrated.","PeriodicalId":18987,"journal":{"name":"NDT Plus","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NDT Plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfad231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Following second-generation randomized trials, there is evidence that renal denervation (RDN) decreases blood pressure (BP), although to a lesser extent than suggested in the initial controlled and observational studies. The recent publication of the 36-month follow-up of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial has raised expectations, suggesting increasing, late benefits of the procedure, despite initially negative results. These findings come after those obtained at 36 months in the sham-controlled trial SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and in the Global Symplicity Registry. However, they are susceptible to biases inherent in observational studies (after unblinding for sham-control) and non-random, substantial attrition of treatment groups at 36 months, and used interpolation of missing BPs. More importantly, in SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and Symplicity HTN-3, long-term BP changes in patients from the initial RDN group were compared with those in a heterogeneous control group, including both control patients who did not benefit from RDN and patients who eventually crossed over to RDN. In crossover patients, the last BP before RDN was imputed to subsequent follow-up. In Symplicity HTN-3, this particular approach led to the claim of increasing long-term benefits of RDN. However, comparison of BP changes in patients from the RDN group and control patients who did not undergo RDN, without imputation of BPs from crossover patients, does not support this view. The good news is that despite the suggestion of sympathetic nerve regrowth after RDN in some animal models, there is no strong signal in favour of a decreasing effect of RDN over time, up to 24 or even 36 months. Still, current data do not support a long-term increase in the effect of RDN and the durability of RDN-related BP reduction remains to be formally demonstrated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肾去神经的晚期预后比早期预后好。事实还是幻想?
经过第二代随机试验,有证据表明肾去神经支配(RDN)降低血压(BP),尽管其程度低于最初的对照和观察性研究。最近发表的simplicity HTN-3试验36个月的随访结果提高了人们的期望,表明尽管最初的结果是负面的,但该手术的后期益处正在增加。这些发现是在假对照试验SPYRAL HTN-ON MED和全球单纯性登记处36个月后获得的。然而,它们容易受到观察性研究固有的偏差(在对假对照进行解盲后)和治疗组在36个月时的非随机、大量损耗的影响,并使用缺失bp的插值。更重要的是,在SPYRAL HTN-ON MED和Symplicity HTN-3试验中,将初始RDN组患者的长期血压变化与异质对照组(包括未从RDN获益的对照患者和最终转为RDN的患者)的患者进行了比较。在交叉患者中,RDN前的最后血压被归咎于随后的随访。在simplicity HTN-3中,这种特殊的方法导致了RDN长期收益的增加。然而,比较RDN组患者和未接受RDN的对照组患者的血压变化,不计算交叉患者的血压变化,不支持这一观点。好消息是,尽管在一些动物模型中RDN后交感神经再生,但没有强烈的信号表明RDN随着时间的推移而减弱,长达24个月甚至36个月。尽管如此,目前的数据并不支持RDN的长期效果增加,RDN相关的血压降低的持久性仍有待正式证明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sleep apnea syndrome prevalence in chronic kidney disease and end stage kidney disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Mechanisms and treatment of Obesity-Related Hypertension: Part 1. Mechanisms Twenty years of the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network Replacing a kidney biopsy by exome sequencing in undetermined kidney diseases – not yet ready for prime time! Kidney and urine cell transcriptomics in IgA nephropathy and lupus nephritis: a narrative review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1