导管式肾脏去神经治疗高血压的效果:系统综述与元分析》。

IF 35.5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Circulation Pub Date : 2024-11-12 Epub Date: 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069709
Davor Vukadinović, Lucas Lauder, David E Kandzari, Deepak L Bhatt, Ajay J Kirtane, Elazer R Edelman, Roland E Schmieder, Michel Azizi, Michael Böhm, Felix Mahfoud
{"title":"导管式肾脏去神经治疗高血压的效果:系统综述与元分析》。","authors":"Davor Vukadinović, Lucas Lauder, David E Kandzari, Deepak L Bhatt, Ajay J Kirtane, Elazer R Edelman, Roland E Schmieder, Michel Azizi, Michael Böhm, Felix Mahfoud","doi":"10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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; <i>P</i><0.00001) and 6.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.6 to 9.7; <i>P</i><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]; <i>P</i><0.00001; -3.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.4 to -1.6]; <i>P</i>=0.0003). There was no difference in 24-hour and office systolic blood pressure reduction between trials with and without concomitant antihypertensive medication (<i>P</i> 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]; <i>P</i>=0.34), renal artery stenosis (odds ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.06 to 36.97]; <i>P</i>=0.80), hypertensive crisis (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.38]; <i>P</i>=0.26), and all-cause death (odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.34 to 9.20]; <i>P</i>=0.50) between RDN and sham groups. Change of renal function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate was comparable between groups (<i>P</i> for interaction, 0.84). There was significant heterogeneity between trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RDN safely reduces ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure versus a sham procedure in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":10331,"journal":{"name":"Circulation","volume":" ","pages":"1599-1611"},"PeriodicalIF":35.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11560572/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Davor Vukadinović, Lucas Lauder, David E Kandzari, Deepak L Bhatt, Ajay J Kirtane, Elazer R Edelman, Roland E Schmieder, Michel Azizi, Michael Böhm, Felix Mahfoud\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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; <i>P</i><0.00001) and 6.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.6 to 9.7; <i>P</i><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]; <i>P</i><0.00001; -3.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.4 to -1.6]; <i>P</i>=0.0003). There was no difference in 24-hour and office systolic blood pressure reduction between trials with and without concomitant antihypertensive medication (<i>P</i> 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]; <i>P</i>=0.34), renal artery stenosis (odds ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.06 to 36.97]; <i>P</i>=0.80), hypertensive crisis (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.38]; <i>P</i>=0.26), and all-cause death (odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.34 to 9.20]; <i>P</i>=0.50) between RDN and sham groups. Change of renal function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate was comparable between groups (<i>P</i> for interaction, 0.84). There was significant heterogeneity between trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RDN safely reduces ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure versus a sham procedure in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10331,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1599-1611\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":35.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11560572/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069709\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069709","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多项假对照试验研究了导管肾脏去神经支配(RDN)的有效性和安全性,结果不一。我们旨在对所有使用第一代和第二代设备对高血压进行肾脏去神经支配的随机假对照试验进行全面的荟萃分析:我们检索了 MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 图书馆中符合条件的试验。结果包括 RDN 的疗效(24 小时和诊室收缩压 [SBP] 和舒张压 [DBP])和安全性(全因死亡、血管并发症、肾动脉狭窄 > 70%、高血压危象)。我们对汇总数据进行了研究层面的配对随机效应荟萃分析:结果:共纳入了 10 项试验,包括 2478 名停药或正在接受治疗的高血压患者。与假治疗相比,RDN 可使 24 小时和办公室收缩压降低 4.4 mm Hg(95% CI,2.7 至 6.1;PPPP=0.0003)。在同时服用和未服用降压药的试验中,24 小时和办公室收缩压的降低幅度没有差异(交互作用的 P 分别为 0.62 和 0.73)。血管并发症(几率比,1.69 [95% CI,0.57 至 5.0];P=0.34)、肾动脉狭窄(几率比,1.50 [95% CI,0.06 至 36.97];P=0.80)、高血压危象(几率比,0.65 [95% CI,0.30 至 1.38];P=0.26)和全因死亡(几率比,1.76 [95% CI,0.34 至 9.20];P=0.50)在 RDN 组和假肾组之间存在差异。根据估计肾小球滤过率计算的肾功能变化在各组之间不相上下(交互作用的 P 为 0.84)。试验之间存在明显的异质性:结论:在服用或未服用降压药的情况下,与假手术相比,RDN能安全地降低流动和办公室收缩压/舒张压。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Circulation
Circulation 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
45.70
自引率
2.10%
发文量
1473
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Circulation is a platform that publishes a diverse range of content related to cardiovascular health and disease. This includes original research manuscripts, review articles, and other contributions spanning observational studies, clinical trials, epidemiology, health services, outcomes studies, and advancements in basic and translational research. The journal serves as a vital resource for professionals and researchers in the field of cardiovascular health, providing a comprehensive platform for disseminating knowledge and fostering advancements in the understanding and management of cardiovascular issues.
期刊最新文献
Complex Anterior Mediastinal Mass in a Young Adult. Flecainide to Prevent Atrial Arrhythmia After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: AFLOAT Study, A Randomized Clinical Trial. Zibotentan in Microvascular Angina: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Trial. Bone Morphogenetic Protein 9 Protects Against Myocardial Infarction by Improving Lymphatic Drainage Function and Triggering DECR1-Mediated Mitochondrial Bioenergetics. Atrial Arrhythmias After PFO Device Closure: Common, Clinically Important, and Preventable?
×
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