Objective: The randomized RADIANCE-HTN TRIO trial assessed the safety and efficacy of ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) among patients with resistant hypertension (HTN), demonstrating a difference in daytime ambulatory systolic BP (DASBP) of -4.5 mmHg in favor of uRDN over a sham procedure at 2 months. Blood pressure results may be confounded by changes in anti-hypertensive medications (AHM). In this analysis, we assessed the BP-lowering efficacy of uRDN adjusted for detected AHM metabolites at baseline and 2 months. Design and method: Following standardization on a single triple combination antihypertensive pill, patients with daytime ambulatory blood pressure (DABP) 135/85 mmHg or greater were randomized 1:1 to uRDN or sham. Chemical adherence testing was used to detect AHM or their metabolites in spot urine samples under blinding to treatment assignment at baseline and 2 months. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was utilized to assess the 2-month change in DASBP between groups, adjusting for DASBP at baseline and AHM detected at baseline and 2 months. Results: Both DABP and AHM urine metabolite data at baseline and 2 months were available in 100 patients (uRDN n=47; sham n=53). Mean age was 52.6±8.8 years, 23% were female, and 71% were white. At baseline, DASBP was 149±11 mmHg and 2.7±1.2 AHM metabolites were detected. No changes in number of detected drugs between baseline and 2 months were found in 72% of the patients. Between baseline and 2 months, the change in DASBP was -10.9 [95% CI: -15.5, -6.3] mmHg in the uRDN group and -4.0 [-8.0, 0.0] mmHg in the sham group (baseline-adjusted between-group difference: -6.9 [-12.8, -1.1] mmHg; p=0.007). Following additional adjustment for the number of detected AHM at baseline and 2M, the mean between-group difference in DASBP was -9.3 [-14.9, -3.7] mmHg (p=0.0003) in favor of uRDN. Conclusions: The blood pressure-lowering efficacy of uRDN in patients with resistant HTN was maintained and numerically more pronounced when adjusting for changes in detected AHM metabolites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zeijen et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: