The Efficacy and Safety of Different Ways of Renal Denervation for Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis

Figures

• 

  FIGURE 1. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for randomized controlled trials compared renal denervation with sham procedure or different ways of renal denervation.

• 

  FIGURE 2. (A) Network plot of all studies reporting 24 h ambulatory SBP, (B) network plot of all studies reporting 24 h ambulatory DBP, and (C) network plot of all studies reporting major adverse event.

• 

  FIGURE 3. (A) Forest plot of the network meta‐analysis for 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure. (B) Forest plot of the network meta‐analysis for 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. (C) Forest plot of the network meta‐analysis for major adverse events. RFB‐RDN, radiofrequency renal denervation of the main renal artery and branches; RFM‐RDN, radiofrequency renal denervation of the main renal artery; US‐RDN, ultrasound renal denervation; ALC‐RDN, alcohol‐mediated renal denervation.

• 

  FIGURE 4. (A) Summary of overall and direct comparisons for 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure. (B) Summary of overall and direct comparisons for 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. (C) Summary of overall and direct comparisons for major adverse events. The lower‐left triangle presents the summary effects from the network meta‐analysis, while the upper‐right triangle shows the results of direct head‐to‐head comparisons between interventions. Data are presented as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RFB‐RDN, radiofrequency renal denervation of the main renal artery and branches; RFM‐RDN, radiofrequency renal denervation of the main renal artery; US‐RDN, ultrasound renal denervation; ALC‐RDN, alcohol‐mediated renal denervation.