Efficacy and safety aspects of renal denervation in treatment of arterial hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Current guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension 2018 of European Society for Cardiology (ESC) do not recommend use of renal denervation (RDN) (as device-based therapy) for treatment of hypertension except as part of clinical studies. However, in the meantime several randomized sham-controlled clinical trials were designed using second generation radiofrequency (RF) (SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED, SPYRAL HTN-ON MED), ultrasound (RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, RADIANCE-HTN TRIO) or alcohol-mediated renal denervation (TARGET BP-OFF) devices. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis from all published and unpublished randomized, sham-controlled clinical trials which explored the effects of renal denervation on blood pressure across different devices. Methods We searched MEDLINE and Embase via OVID@ for eligible trials. Of note, we also included unpublished data from the SPYRAL-ON Extension and TARGET BP OFF trials. Pooling the data from all studies, we explored the efficacy (ambulatory and office systolic and diastolic BP) and safety (all cause death, vascular complication, renal artery stenosis >70%, hypertensive crisis) of RDN. Results Analysis included 9 eligible trials (i.e. SYMPLICITY HTN-3, ReSET, SPYRAL HTN OFF MED, Desch et al., RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, RADIANCE, TARGET BP OFF, SPYRAL HTN ON MED extension) comprising 2,091 patients (Table 1). RDN reduced ambulatory systolic (-3.10 mmHg, 95% CI -4.22, -1.97, p<0.00001) and office systolic (-5.15 mmHg, 95% CI -6.65, -3.66, p<0.00001) BP and ambulatory diastolic (-1.58 mmHg, 95% CI -2.54, -0.63, p=0.001) and office diastolic (-2.74 mmHg, 95% CI -3.65, -1.83, p<0.00001) BP compared with sham groups. There was no difference concerning ambulatory SBP reduction between trials with ON medication design (-2.94 mmHg, p<0.0001) and those with OFF medication design (-3.37 mmHg, p<0.0001) (p for interaction 0.69). Similarly, office SBP reduction was comparable between trials with (-4.38 mmHg, p<0.0001) and without concomitant antihypertensive drugs prescription (-6.27 mmHg, p<0.00001) (p for interaction 0.22). The rate of vascular complications (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.28, 5.25, p=0.80), renal artery stenosis (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.06, 36.97, p=0.80), hypertensive crisis (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.50, 3.92, p=0.53) and all cause death (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.10, 2.83, p=0.45) was not different between treatment and sham groups. Conclusions RDN is associated with clinically significant reductions in ambulatory and office SBP as compared with sham in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medication. The procedure use was not associated with an excess in safety events compared with sham group.