RADIANCE-HTN和SPYRAL-HTN的五项随机研究表明,RDN的降压作用相当于一种降压药物的作用。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Blood Pressure Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-29 DOI:10.1080/08037051.2021.1995975
Sverre E Kjeldsen, Krzysztof Narkiewicz, Michel Burnier, Suzanne Oparil
{"title":"RADIANCE-HTN和SPYRAL-HTN的五项随机研究表明,RDN的降压作用相当于一种降压药物的作用。","authors":"Sverre E Kjeldsen, Krzysztof Narkiewicz, Michel Burnier, Suzanne Oparil","doi":"10.1080/08037051.2021.1995975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Renal denervation (RDN) may be a new treatment modality for patients with hypertension. Initially, efforts to test the efficacy of RDN in lowering blood pressure (BP) have focussed on patients with apparent treatment resistant hypertension (aTRH). The SYMPLICITY HTN2 trial [1] reported a major reduction in systolic BP with RDN in patients with aTRH using office-based BP measurement. However, using ambulatory BP, the state-ofthe art technique for measuring BP in patients with aTRH [2], BP reductions were less evident [1]. Further, since poor drug adherence, which is common in aTRH [3], was not monitored in SYMPLICITY HTN-2, interpretation of the study results could be confounded by the Hawthorne effect i.e. patients started taking their drugs as prescribed in response to the attention devoted to them [4]. SYMPLICITY HTN-3 [5] included a sham control group and ambulatory BP measurements that balanced the Hawthorne and white-coat, placebo, and regressionto-the–mean effects, resulting in a BP reduction of 2mmHg in the RDN treatment group compared to the sham control. Further, meta-analyses of the first generation of randomised controlled studies of RDN did not show BP lowering effects of RDN (Figures 1 and 2), whether or not SYMPLICITY HTN-3 was included [6], and whether or not a sham control (Figures 3 and 4) was a part of the design [7]. However, these disappointments [5–7] did not end the interest in RDN for many reasons. First, total abdominal sympathectomy resulting from surgical splanchnicectomy was highly effective in the treatment of severe hypertension in cohorts of patients reported in the 1930s [8] and 1950s [9,10]. Second, the meta-analyses showed that RDN did not lead to severe adverse events and could be considered safe [6,7]. Third, the role of the sympathetic nervous system in the pathophysiology of hypertension is strong [11,12]. Further, the procedural problems that contributed to the failure of early RDN trials to lower BP could be overcome [13,14]. Therefore, new protocols were designed to assess the antihypertensive efficacy of RDN. One new approach was to perform clinical studies in untreated hypertensive","PeriodicalId":9000,"journal":{"name":"Blood Pressure","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The five RADIANCE-HTN and SPYRAL-HTN randomised studies suggest that the BP lowering effect of RDN corresponds to the effect of one antihypertensive drug.\",\"authors\":\"Sverre E Kjeldsen, Krzysztof Narkiewicz, Michel Burnier, Suzanne Oparil\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08037051.2021.1995975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Renal denervation (RDN) may be a new treatment modality for patients with hypertension. Initially, efforts to test the efficacy of RDN in lowering blood pressure (BP) have focussed on patients with apparent treatment resistant hypertension (aTRH). The SYMPLICITY HTN2 trial [1] reported a major reduction in systolic BP with RDN in patients with aTRH using office-based BP measurement. However, using ambulatory BP, the state-ofthe art technique for measuring BP in patients with aTRH [2], BP reductions were less evident [1]. Further, since poor drug adherence, which is common in aTRH [3], was not monitored in SYMPLICITY HTN-2, interpretation of the study results could be confounded by the Hawthorne effect i.e. patients started taking their drugs as prescribed in response to the attention devoted to them [4]. SYMPLICITY HTN-3 [5] included a sham control group and ambulatory BP measurements that balanced the Hawthorne and white-coat, placebo, and regressionto-the–mean effects, resulting in a BP reduction of 2mmHg in the RDN treatment group compared to the sham control. Further, meta-analyses of the first generation of randomised controlled studies of RDN did not show BP lowering effects of RDN (Figures 1 and 2), whether or not SYMPLICITY HTN-3 was included [6], and whether or not a sham control (Figures 3 and 4) was a part of the design [7]. However, these disappointments [5–7] did not end the interest in RDN for many reasons. First, total abdominal sympathectomy resulting from surgical splanchnicectomy was highly effective in the treatment of severe hypertension in cohorts of patients reported in the 1930s [8] and 1950s [9,10]. Second, the meta-analyses showed that RDN did not lead to severe adverse events and could be considered safe [6,7]. Third, the role of the sympathetic nervous system in the pathophysiology of hypertension is strong [11,12]. Further, the procedural problems that contributed to the failure of early RDN trials to lower BP could be overcome [13,14]. Therefore, new protocols were designed to assess the antihypertensive efficacy of RDN. One new approach was to perform clinical studies in untreated hypertensive\",\"PeriodicalId\":9000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Blood Pressure\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Blood Pressure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08037051.2021.1995975\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Pressure","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08037051.2021.1995975","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
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
The five RADIANCE-HTN and SPYRAL-HTN randomised studies suggest that the BP lowering effect of RDN corresponds to the effect of one antihypertensive drug.
Renal denervation (RDN) may be a new treatment modality for patients with hypertension. Initially, efforts to test the efficacy of RDN in lowering blood pressure (BP) have focussed on patients with apparent treatment resistant hypertension (aTRH). The SYMPLICITY HTN2 trial [1] reported a major reduction in systolic BP with RDN in patients with aTRH using office-based BP measurement. However, using ambulatory BP, the state-ofthe art technique for measuring BP in patients with aTRH [2], BP reductions were less evident [1]. Further, since poor drug adherence, which is common in aTRH [3], was not monitored in SYMPLICITY HTN-2, interpretation of the study results could be confounded by the Hawthorne effect i.e. patients started taking their drugs as prescribed in response to the attention devoted to them [4]. SYMPLICITY HTN-3 [5] included a sham control group and ambulatory BP measurements that balanced the Hawthorne and white-coat, placebo, and regressionto-the–mean effects, resulting in a BP reduction of 2mmHg in the RDN treatment group compared to the sham control. Further, meta-analyses of the first generation of randomised controlled studies of RDN did not show BP lowering effects of RDN (Figures 1 and 2), whether or not SYMPLICITY HTN-3 was included [6], and whether or not a sham control (Figures 3 and 4) was a part of the design [7]. However, these disappointments [5–7] did not end the interest in RDN for many reasons. First, total abdominal sympathectomy resulting from surgical splanchnicectomy was highly effective in the treatment of severe hypertension in cohorts of patients reported in the 1930s [8] and 1950s [9,10]. Second, the meta-analyses showed that RDN did not lead to severe adverse events and could be considered safe [6,7]. Third, the role of the sympathetic nervous system in the pathophysiology of hypertension is strong [11,12]. Further, the procedural problems that contributed to the failure of early RDN trials to lower BP could be overcome [13,14]. Therefore, new protocols were designed to assess the antihypertensive efficacy of RDN. One new approach was to perform clinical studies in untreated hypertensive
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
Blood Pressure
Blood Pressure Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: For outstanding coverage of the latest advances in hypertension research, turn to Blood Pressure, a primary source for authoritative and timely information on all aspects of hypertension research and management. Features include: • Physiology and pathophysiology of blood pressure regulation • Primary and secondary hypertension • Cerebrovascular and cardiovascular complications of hypertension • Detection, treatment and follow-up of hypertension • Non pharmacological and pharmacological management • Large outcome trials in hypertension.
期刊最新文献
Mission 70/26 Project: improving blood pressure control in Portugal. Factors associated with progression of arterial stiffness in ischemic stroke survivors: the Norwegian Stroke in the Young Study. The impact of prediabetes and diabetes on endothelial function in a large population-based cohort. The relationship between mid-upper arm circumference and blood pressure in Walter Sisulu University community. Habitual food consumption, eating behavior and meal-timing among Jordanian adults with elevated Blood pressure: a cross-sectional population-based study.
×
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