Blood Pressure In Resistant Hypertension Research Articles

Renal autonomic dynamics in hypertension: how can we evaluate sympathetic activity for renal denervation?

This review explores the various pathophysiological factors influencing antihypertensive effects, involving the regulation of vascular resistance, plasma volume, cardiac function, and the autonomic nervous system, emphasizing the interconnected processes regulating blood pressure (BP). The kidney's pivotal role in BP control and its potential contribution to hypertension is complicated but important to understand the effective mechanisms of renal denervation (RDN), which may be a promising treatment for resistant hypertension. Excessive stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system or the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) can elevate BP through various physiological changes, contributing to chronic hypertension. Renal sympathetic efferent nerve activation leads to elevated norepinephrine levels and subsequent cascading effects on vasoconstriction, renin release, and sodium reabsorption. RDN reduces BP in resistant hypertension by potentially disrupting sensory afferent nerves, decreasing feedback activation to the central nervous system, and reducing efferent sympathetic nerve activity in the heart and other structures. RDN may also modulate central sympathetic outflow and inhibit renal renin-angiotensin system overactivation. While evidence for RDN efficacy in hypertension is increasing, accurate patient selection becomes crucial, considering complex interactions that vary among patients. This review also discusses methods to evaluate autonomic nerve activity from the golden standard to new potential examination for finding out optimization in stimulation parameters or rigorous patient selection based on appropriate biomarkers.

New ways of mitigating aldosterone in cardiorenal disease.

Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) bind to the mineralocorticoid receptor and antagonize the effects of aldosterone, which contributes to the development and progression of cardio- and renovascular diseases. Guidelines recommend steroidal MRAs in patients with heart failure with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction, as they reduce morbidity and mortality. In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, MRAs have not convincingly shown to improve prognosis. Steroidal MRAs delay the progression of chronic kidney disease, reduce proteinuria and lower blood pressure in resistant hypertension but can induce hyperkalaemia. Due to their limited selectivity to the mineralocorticoid receptor, steroidal MRAs can cause significant adverse effects, i.e. libido loss, erectile dysfunction, gynaecomastia, and amenorrhoea, leading to low rates of persistance. Against this background, new avenues for developing non-steroidal, selective (ns)MRAs and aldosterone-synthase inhibitors have been taken. Finerenone has been shown to delay the progression of diabetic nephropathy and lower the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations in patients with chronic kidney disease and diabetes compared with placebo. Finerenone has therefore been recommended by the 2023 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the management of diabetes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Further randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and effectiveness of finerenone in patients with heart failure are currently ongoing. Esaxerenone provides antihypertensive effects and has been approved for the treatment of hypertension in Japan. Baxdrostat and lorundostat, novel selective aldosterone-synthase inhibitors, are currently under investigation. In phase II trials, baxdrostat and lorundostat were safe and effective in lowering blood pressure in resistant hypertension. In this review, we summarize and critically discuss the evidence for new drugs mitigating aldosterone in heart failure, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease.

37. Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Resistant Hypertension Treated with Renal Denervation, Does it Work?: a Systematic Review

37. Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Resistant Hypertension Treated with Renal Denervation, Does it Work?: a Systematic Review

50. Effectiveness of Renal Denervation in Patients with Resistant Hypertension: An Umbrella and Mapping Review

Background: Resistant hypertension is a condition when blood pressure remains high despite the routine consumption of three antihypertensive agents, including diuretics. Due to the unwanted side effects of antihypertensive agents, non-pharmacology therapy such as renal denervation can be chosen as alternative management, even though this modality still remain controversial. This umbrella review appraises published meta-analyses of observational, controlled trial, and randomized controlled trial (RCT) for the efficacy of renal denervation in hypertension. Objective: The aim of this umbrella review is to provide an overview of the efficacy of controversial renal denervation as an alternative management in the case of resistant hypertension. Method: Eight databases were searched was the beginning of 2012 to the 15th of January 2023. Thirteen meta-analyses were included. Non-English languages, wrong study type, wrong population, and wrong study outcomes were excluded. Result: Eight of thirteen meta-analyses showed significant benefits of renal denervation in reducing blood pressure. Furthermore, one of which showed that the efficacy of renal denervation is better than pharmacological therapy in lowering the blood pressure in resistant hypertension. No significant benefit of renal denervation was found in any other meta-analyses, nonetheless, it was safe to use. Conclusion: Despite various results from multiple meta-analyses, this umbrella review reveals that renal denervation is beneficial in lowering the blood pressure in resistant hypertension. Further research using long-term follow-up and big-scale subjects is needed to confirm this result.

8. Efficacy of Renal Denervation on Office Blood Pressure in Resistant Hypertension: a Systematic Review

Hypertension almost occurs in about a quarter of the world's population and is still increasing, causing a burden in public health. Renal denervation is one of the strategies to treat resistant hypertension. However, studies on the efficacy of renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension are still limited and not well known. The purpose of this study was to find out the efficacy of renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension by office blood pressure measurement. This review was conducted on 10–17 December 2022. Two independent researchers systematically extracted data from several databases, such as PubMed Central (PMC), Science Direct, and PUBMED by using MeSH terminology of keywords renal denervation, hypertension, and safety. The extracted studies were then analyzed and selected according to our inclusion criteria such as studies in the last 5 years, cohort studies, and case-control studies. We excluded systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, case reports, studies on pregnant women, children, and animals. Research quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS). From 5 cohort studies (1605 subjects from various countries), all of them showed renal denervation resulted in better and sustained office blood pressure control on long-term follow up; All studies have proven good quality based on NOS. In conclusion, renal denervation showed efficacy by sustained blood pressure reducing effect in patients with resistant hypertension. However, further study is needed to confirm these findings.

Cardiac structure and function in resistant hypertension: The beneficial role of blood pressure control.

Cardiac structure and function in resistant hypertension: The beneficial role of blood pressure control.

The effect of altered physical activity on hypertension: a longitudinal study in Indonesia

A higher level of physical activity is widely recommended for the prevention of several Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and leads to a reduction of blood pressure in resistant hypertension as well. This study aimed to measure the estimated effect of altered physical activity on hypertension over the course of three years of observation. This longitudinal study was conducted on 3109 adults at baseline using The Cohort Study of NCDs Risk Factors. The investigation was conducted through interviews, self-reports and observations. Data were analyzed using the Generalized Estimating Equation. The results show that the highest proportion of hypertension based on observation time occurred among those with low physical activity and experienced a delta change of less than 100 MET-min/week, which was 24% at the third follow-up. The risk of hypertension was higher among those with low physical activity and unchanged in the second (RR=1,642; 0,922 – 8,224) and third years of follow-up (RR=3,607; 95% CI: 0,923 – 7,993) compared to those who had moderate-vigorous activity. A longer follow-up period led to higher risk estimation. Given the significant impact of inactivity, regular physical activity should therefore be recommended for all individuals at risk of hypertension, including office workers. A firm policy is needed to encourage workplace physical activity breaks, in both government and private sectors.

Abstract 11428: A Comparison Between Endothelin Receptor Antagonists and Renal Denervation for Resistant Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sham and Placebo Controlled Trials

Introduction: Endothelin-1 causes vasoconstriction by activation of calcium flux in smooth muscle cells. Use of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) has remained controversial. Renal denervation (RD) has also been investigated as a treatment option for resistant hypertension (RHTN). The efficacy of these two novel treatment strategies was compared. Methods: Placebo-controlled and sham-controlled randomized clinical trials testing ERA or RD as treatments for RHTN were selected. Prespecified subgroup analyses comparing the efficacy of ERA and RD were conducted for outcomes of 24-hour (hr) blood pressure (BP) and office BP. Results: Nine studies (3 ERA and 6 RD) were identified that included 1,708 participants (816 ERA and 892 RD). Cochran risk of bias assessment showed 72% of the domains to be low risk of bias for the ERA studies and 88% of the domains to be low risk of bias for the RD studies. The raw mean difference (RMD) between ERA and placebo control was statistically significant for 24-hr systolic (SBP) (-8.34 mmHg; 95% CI -11.51 to -5.81, 24-hr diastolic (DBP) (-6.77 mmHg; 95% CI -8.90 to -4.63), office SBP (-4.50 mmHg; 95% CI -6.92 to -2.08), and office DBP (-2.01 mmHg; 95% CI -2.13 to -1.88). The RMD between RD and sham control was not statistically significant for 24-hr SBP (-1.85 mmHg; 95% CI -3.88 to 0.18), 24-hr DBP (-0.67 mmHg; 95% CI -1.84 to 0.51), office SBP (-1.93 mmHg; 95% CI -5.17 to 1.31), and office DBP (-1.55 mmHg; 95% CI -3.43 to 0.33). The interaction between the treatment subgroups was statistically significant for 24-hr SBP and DBP, but not for office SBP and DBP. Discussion: ERAs had greater reduction in 24-hr and office BP compared to RD among patients with RHTN. Despite efficacy in reducing BP in RHTN, use of ERAs remains controversial given the cost and side effect profile. RD does not reduce BP among patients with RHTN. Medications are the optimal treatment for RHTN and sham controlled data showing efficacy is needed prior to widespread use and adoption of RD in RHTN.

May the brief physical activity assessment tool accurately measure physical activity in patients with resistant hypertension?

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – EU funding. Main funding source(s): FEDER Funds through the Operational Competitiveness Factors Program—COMPETE National Funds through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) “PTDC/DTP-DES/1725/2014”. SL is a PhD fellow supported by the FCT (Grant Ref: SFRH/BD/129454/2017). Introduction Resistant hypertension is a major health problem due to the increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Physical activity and exercise reduces blood pressure in resistant hypertension and is associated with lower cardiovascular risk and mortality. It is presently recommended that physical activity assessment should be a priority in all visits to health settings Purpose This study aims to determine if the Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT), a 2-question tool to assess physical activity, is a valid instrument to detect inactive patients with resistant hypertension. Methods Sixty patients with a diagnosis of resistant hypertension were recruited. Outcome measures included clinical data, blood pressure and daily physical activity. Physical activity was objectively measured over a 7-day period with an accelerometer and subjectively assessed (self-assessment) by the BPAAT. The association between the BPAAT and accelerometry, according to the BPAAT scoring categories, was assessed bythe percentage of agreement, Cohen’s Kappa and sensitivity and specificity. Results Patients (33 were male) had a mean age of 59.4 ± 9.1years, were on average overweight (BMI 29.5 ± 4.5 kg/m2) and on an average of 4.5 ± 0.7 antihypertensive medications. Forty-two patients (70%) were classified as insufficiently active by the BPAAT compared to the 38 (63.3%) insufficiently active patients identified by the accelerometry data. Regarding the questionnaire’s specificity and sensitivity, the BPAAT correctly identified 32 [84.2 (73.1 – 95.3) %] of the 38 ‘insufficiently active’ patients and 12 [54.5 (34.3 – 74.7) %] of the 22 ‘sufficiently active’ patients identified by accelerometry. The agreement between BPAAT and accelerometry to identify sufficiently/insufficiently active patients, according to the BPAAT’s cut-off values was fair to moderate (Kappa = 0.403 (0.162 – 0.674), with a percentage of agreement of 73.3%. Conclusion The BPAAT, a 2-question tool to assess physical activity, seems to be a valid and fast solution to identify insufficiently active adults with resistant hypertension during routine clinical visits.

Preference and practice of Indian physicians towards the use of vasodilator di-hydralazine in the management of resistant hypertension

Background: The treatment modalities of resistant hypertension (RH) remain a clinical challenge, often requiring secondary/add-on drugs with first-line therapy to control blood pressure (BP). This study was conducted to explore and understand the preferences and practices of Indian physicians towards the use of vasodilator (especially di-hydralazine) in the management of RH.Methods: This was a cross-sectional, observational, web-based physician survey. The study included cardiologist, nephrologist and consultant physicians from different geographical regions of India. A web-based physician survey questionnaire (PSQ) was created in google forms and the link was circulated to the physicians. Responses obtained were analysed.Results: A total of 457 physicians participated in this survey. In majority of the physicians, vasodilators were the treatment choice as secondary or add-on drugs with first line therapy to control BP in RH; especially hydralazine/di-hydralazine preferred the most. Majority of the physicians preferred to combine vasodilator with beta blocker and diuretic in patients with uncontrolled and RH. Cardiac failure, followed by chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes, dyslipidaemia, hypertensive emergency and angina were the common patient profile in RH in which majority physicians prescribed vasodilator (di-hydralazine). Majority of the physicians rated vasodilator di-hydralazine as “good-very good” in terms of efficacy, safety, tolerability, patient compliance and patient satisfaction in RH.Conclusions: Overall, vasodilators (hydrazinophthalazine derivatives) are preferred as add-on drugs along with first-line drugs in RH. Physician’s opinion towards the use of di-hydralazine was positive. Di-hydralazine may be preferred as an add-on therapeutic option to control BP in RH, however randomized clinical trials are needed for recommendation in cardio-renal medicine.

Clinical efficacy and safety of spironolactone in patients with resistant hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background:We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize all available evidence from randomized controlled trial studies regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of spironolactone in patients with resistant hypertension (RH) and provided a quantitative assessment.Methods:A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases through December 8, 2019, was performed. Randomized controlled trials randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria were included to assess the effect of the addition of spironolactone on office blood pressure (BP), 24-hour ambulatory BP or adverse events in RH patients.Results:Twelve trials, which enrolled a total of 1655 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. In comparison with placebo, spironolactone significantly reduced office BP (office SBP, weighted mean difference [WMD] = −20.14, 95% CI = −31.17 to −9.12, P < .001; office DBP WMD = −5.73, 95% CI = −8.13 to −3.33, P < .001) and 24-hour ambulatory BP (ASBP, WMD = −10.31, 95% CI = −12.86 to −7.76, P < .001; ADBP, WMD = −3.94, 95% CI = −5.50 to −2.37, P < .001). Compared with alternative drugs, spironolactone treatment in RH patients significantly decreased 24-hour ambulatory BP (ASBP, WMD = −6.98, 95% CI = −12.66 to −1.30, P < .05; ADBP, WMD = −3.03, 95% CI = −5.21 to −0.85, P < .001).Conclusion:This meta-analysis fully evaluated the antihypertensive effect of spironolactone compared with placebo, alternative drugs, renal nerve denervation and no treatment. Spironolactone can result in a substantial BP reduction in patients with RH at 3 months.

P0158RENAL DENERVATION VERSUS SPIRONOLACTONE IN THE TREATMENT OF RESISTANT HYPERTENSION: A META-ANALYSIS

Abstract Background and Aims Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as blood pressure that remains above guideline-directed goal despite the concurrent use of at least three antihypertensive agents of different classes, one of which is a diuretic. Treatment of RH is focused on the addition of fourth-line therapy. Several studies revealed impressive blood pressure reductions when spironolactone was added to the therapeutic regimen. In the recent years, there has been a growing perception that controlling blood pressure in resistant hypertension is beyond the reach of existing drug therapies, leading to the emergence of device-based therapies, such as renal denervation. Our aim is to do a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compares the use of Spironolactone and Renal Denervation in patients with RH. Method A comprehensive literature search from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid was performed with the following search terms: Resistant Hypertension, Spironolactone, Renal Denervation. The search was limited to randomized-controlled trials that compared Spironolactone to Renal Denervation in patients with Resistant Hypertension. Three prospective clinical trials were selected and analyzed using Cochrane Revman v5.3. Primary outcome were mean changes in 24-hour Ambulatory Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP). Secondary outcomes include mean changes in Office SBP and DBP. Safety was assessed by changes in eGFR and potassium levels. Results Two trials comprising 130 patients were selected - 63 patients treated with RDN and 67 patients with Spironolactone. Pooled analysis of the 2 trials for 24H SBP and DBP showed an adjusted standardized mean difference of 0.55 mmHg (CI -0.72, 1.82; P = 0.39) and 0.32 mmHg (CI -0.72, 1.35; P = 0.55) with significant heterogeneity. No significant differences were also noted in terms of decline in eGFR (p = 0.07) and changes in serum potassium (p = 0.29) from baseline to 6 months. Conclusion Based on our results, RD appears to be safe and effective treatment for RH. However, additional larger studies should be done including a cost-benefit analysis to explore that possibility of RD as treatment alternative for those intolerant of spironolactone or as a possible 5th line of treatment for those already taking spironolactone.

Exercise: a therapeutic modality to treat blood pressure in resistant hypertension

Background: Thirteen percent of deaths worldwide are attributed to blood pressure above the normal range, or hypertension. Activation of the sympathetic nervous system plays a predominant role in blood pressure elevation. A phenotype of hypertension, referred to as resistant hypertension, occurs when the goal blood pressure is not achieved when using three or more medications, including a diuretic. A sleep disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, is also associated with increased sympathetic activity and as well, is strongly associated with resistant hypertension. However whilst the use of a continuous positive airway pressure device during sleep is effective in eliminating the breath pauses in people with obstructive sleep apnea, it does not address the hypertension. Alternative therapeutic modalities are thus warranted. One such therapy, exercise, has been shown to have a positive influence on blood pressure in hypertensive and normotensive individuals and may potentially be used as a therapeutic modality to reduce blood pressure in individuals with resistant hypertension.Objectives: The purpose of this review was to explore the evidence in support of exercise as a valuable therapeutic modality to reduce blood pressure in adults with resistant hypertension.Major findings: All types of exercise have been shown to reduce blood pressure in hypertensives and normotensives. Aerobic exercise has the greatest effect on reducing blood pressure in individuals with resistant hypertension and thus also reduces morbidity and mortality risk.Conclusions: Exercise has been shown to reduce blood pressure in hypertension and resistant hypertension and is an effective, safe modality.

Clinic Versus Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Resistant Hypertension: Impact of Antihypertensive Medication Nonadherence: A Post Hoc Analysis the DENERHTN Study.

Clinic-ambulatory blood pressure (BP) difference is influenced by patients- and device-related factors and inadequate clinic-BP measurement. We investigated whether nonadherence to antihypertensive medications may also influence this difference in a post hoc analysis of the DENERHTN trial (Renal Denervation for Hypertension). We pooled the data of 77 out of 106 evaluable patients with apparent resistant hypertension who received a standardized antihypertensive treatment and had both ambulatory BP and drug-screening results available at baseline after 1 month of standardized triple therapy and at 6 months on a median of 5 antihypertensive drugs. After drug assay samplings on study visits, patients took their antihypertensive treatment under supervision immediately after the start of the ambulatory BP recording, and supine clinic BP was measured 24 hours post-dosing; both allowed to calculate the clinic minus daytime ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) difference (clinic-SBP-day-SBP). A total of 29 (37.7%) were found nonadherent to medications at baseline and 38 (49.4%) at 6 months. At baseline, the mean clinic-SBP-day-SBP difference in the nonadherent group was 12.7 mm Hg (95% CI, 7.8-17.7 mm Hg, P<0.001). In contrast, clinic SBP was almost identical to day-SBP in the adherent group (clinic-SBP-day-SBP difference, 0.1 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.3 to 3.5 mm Hg; P=0.947). Similar observations were made at 6 months. Using receiver operating characteristics curves, we found that a 6 mm Hg cutoff of clinic-SBP-day-SBP difference had 67% sensitivity and 69% specificity to predict nonadherence to the triple therapy at baseline. In conclusion, a large clinic-SBP-day-SBP difference may help discriminating between adherence and nonadherence to treatment in patients with resistant hypertension. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01570777.

A9989 Effects of exercise training on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in resistant hypertension

Objectives:To assess whether exercise training improves 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in patients with resistant hypertension (RH).Methods:In this randomized-control trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03090529), 19 patients with resistant hypertension (age: 59.4 ± 7.9 years, weight: 81.3 ± 11.7

Modulation of Sympathetic Overactivity to Treat Resistant Hypertension.

To review the role and evidence for sympathetic overactivity in resistant hypertension and review the therapies that have been studied to modulate the sympathetic nervous system to treat resistant hypertension, with a focus on non-pharmacologic therapies such as renal denervation, baroreflex activation therapy, and carotid body ablation. Based on the two best current techniques available for assessing sympathetic nerve activity, resistant hypertension is characterized by increased sympathetic nerve activity. Several device therapies, including renal denervation baroreflex activation therapy and carotid body ablation, have been developed as non-pharmacologic means of reducing blood pressure in resistant hypertension. With respect to renal denervation, the technologies for renal denervation have evolved since the unfavorable results from the HTN-3 study, and the revised technologies are being actively studied. Data from the first phase of the SPYRAL HTN Clinical Trial Program have been published. Results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED trial suggest that ablating renal nerves can reduce blood pressure in patients with untreated mild-to-moderate hypertension. The SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of catheter-based renal denervation in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on antihypertensive treatment. Interestingly, there was a high rate of medication non-adherence among patients with hypertension in this study. One attractive alternative to radiofrequency ablation is the use of ultrasound for renal denervation. Proof of concept data for the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system was recently published in the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial. The results of this trial indicate that, among patients with mild to moderate hypertension on no medications, renal denervation with the Paradise system results in a greater reduction in both SBP and DBP at 2months compared with a sham procedure. Overall reductions were similar in magnitude to those noted in the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study. With respect to carotid body ablation, there is an ongoing proof of concept study that is investigating the safety and feasibility of ultrasound-based endovascular carotid body ablation in 30 subjects with treatment-resistant hypertension outside of the USA. The sympathetic nervous system is an important contributor to resistant hypertension. Modulation of sympathetic overactivity should be an important goal of treatment. Innovative therapies using non-pharmacologic means to suppress the sympathetic nervous system are actively being studied to treat resistant hypertension.

Safety profile of baroreflex activation therapy (NEO) in patients with resistant hypertension.

Unlike safety data of baroreflex activation therapy device (Rheos), only few data of the currently used second device (Barostim neo) are available and little is reported about common side effects. We prospectively analyzed patients with resistant hypertension treated with Barostim neo. A standardized interview regarding side effects of the therapy was performed in routine follow-up visits after device implantation in 42 patients to determine adverse events staged into three degrees. Within 6 months of baroreflex activation therapy, the office mean arterial blood pressure decreased from 169 ± 27 to 148 ± 29 mmHg systolic (P < 0.001), respectively, to 145 ± 24 mmHg after 1 year (P < 0.001), whereas the number of prescribed antihypertensive classes decreased from 6.6 ± 1.5 to 5.6 ± 1.8 (P < 0.001). Adverse events were combination of the following field depending on the severity (I° mild: local discomfort, clinical observation only, no intervention indicated; II° moderate: medically significant such as occurrence of hypertensive crisis, syncope, arrhythmias; III° severe: life-threatening events or urgent medical intervention indicated). Adverse events I° were present in almost all patients (97.6%), and occurred mainly within first 6 months after device activation. Device-related events were most frequently and could be resolved by optimization of device parameters. Most procedure-related adverse events were directly related to the incision or anesthetic procedure. Adverse events II° occurred in 28.6% patients treated with Barostim neo, whereas patients' elevated individual risks might be potential triggers. Because of individual diversity of blood pressure response and the occurrence of adverse events, no standardization of parameters of implantable pulse generator could be found. By adapting the pulse generator settings individually, most of adverse events I° resolved without sequel. Though there are common side effects, Barostim neo significantly lowers blood pressure in resistant hypertension and provides an adequate safety profile. Regular patient visits are necessary to register side effects.

Renal nerve ablation reduces blood pressure in resistant hypertension: Long-term clinical outcomes in a single-center experience.

Approximately 10% of patients with hypertension have resistant hypertension, even if adequate pharmacological therapy is established. In this regard, renal nerve ablation (RNA) could represent a valid alternative treatment option. In a retrospective analysis with a follow-up of 6, 12, and 24months, the authors investigated the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal artery ablation in 57 patients undergoing RNA with multiple renal nerve ablation in both renal arteries. In addition to medical antihypertensive therapy (4.2±1.4 drugs per patient), RNA using three different ablation systems was performed in patients with confirmed resistant hypertension (systolic blood pressure >140mm Hg in spite of three drugs including a diuretic). The primary end point was the change in office ambulatory systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6, 12, and 24months of follow-up after RNA. The primary safety end point was the change in plasma creatinine levels after 12 and 24months compared with baseline. The mean office systolic blood pressure at baseline was 167.6±22.4 and after 6, 12, and 24months averaged 143.5±21.1 (P<.05), 141.1±21.1 (P<.05), and 139.4±19.6mm Hg (P<.05) respectively, with an average of 15.1±5.3 nerve ablations performed. No significant changes in plasma creatinine levels were observed at 12 months (P=.421) and at 24months (P=.217). There were no complications after RNA nor any relevant adverse vascular, renal, or cardiovascular events observed except in one patient in whom a covered stent had to be placed at the femoral puncture site. In this study, in all patients with resistant hypertension, RNA, if performed adequately in the number of ablations and energy delivery, is an efficient and safe treatment option to lower office and 24-hour blood pressure. Whether these blood pressure-lowering effects will lead to a reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality will require further studies.

Acute and chronic effects of aerobic exercise on blood pressure in resistant hypertension: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundResistant hypertension is a specific condition that affects approximately 10% of subjects with hypertension, and is characterized by persistently high blood pressure levels even using therapy of three or more antihypertensive agents or with blood pressure control using therapy with four or more antihypertensive agents. Changes in lifestyle, such as physical exercise, are indicated for controlling blood pressure. However, investigating studies about this therapy in individuals with resistant hypertension are few.Methods/designThis is a randomized controlled clinical trial. Forty-eight patients with resistant hypertension will be submitted to perform four short-term interventions: aerobic exercise sessions (mild-, moderate- and high-intensity) and control session, in random order and on separate days. After the short-term sessions, the patients will be randomly allocated into four groups for 8 weeks of follow-up: mild-, moderate- and high-intensity aerobic exercise, and a control group. The primary outcome is the occurrence of blood pressure reduction (office and ambulatory analysis, and acute and chronic effects). Secondary outcomes are autonomic and hemodynamic mechanisms: cardiac and vasomotor autonomic modulation, spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity, forearm blood flow and vascular resistance.DiscussionThe importance of exercise for hypertension has been known for decades, but little is known about the effects on patients with resistant hypertension. This study will help to understand whether different aerobic exercise intensities can induce different responses, as well as by what mechanisms adjustments in blood pressure levels may occur.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02670681. Registered on 28 January 2016 (first version); Brazilian Registry Platform Clinical Trials: protocol RBR-5q24zh. Registered on 24 June 2015.

Endovascular Renal Denervation in End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients: Cardiovascular Protection—A Proof-of-Concept Study

IntroductionSympathetic neural activation is markedly increased in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) reduces sympathetic overactivity and blood pressure in resistant hypertension. We investigated the effect of RDN on sympathetic neural activation and left ventricular mass in patients with ESKD.MethodsNine ESKD (6 hemodialysis and 3 peritoneal dialysis) patients with dialysis vintage of ≥11 months were treated with RDN (EnligHTN system). Data were obtained on a nondialysis day; at baseline, 1, 3, and 12 months post-RDN.ResultsAt baseline sympathetic neural activation measured by muscle sympathetic nervous activity (MSNA) and plasma norepinephrine concentrations were markedly elevated. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was evident in 8 of the 9 patients. At 12 months post-RDN, blind analysis revealed that MSNAfrequency (–12.2 bursts/min1, 95% CI [–13.6, –10.7]) and LV mass (–27 g/m2, 95% CI [–47, –8]) were reduced. Mean ambulatory BP (systolic: –24 mm Hg, 95% CI [–42, –5] and diastolic: –13 mm Hg, 95% CI [–22, –4]) was also reduced at 12 months. Office BP was reduced as early as 1 month (systolic: –25 mm Hg, 95% CI [–45, –5] and diastolic: –13 mm Hg, 95% CI [–24, –1]). Both ambulatory and office BP had clinically significant reductions in at least 50% of patients out to 12 months.DiscussionCatheter-based RDN significantly reduced MSNA and LV mass as well as systemic BP in this group of patients with ESKD.