Why the study?
Randomized controlled trials of renal denervation for hypertension have reported conflicting blood pressure results, and whether unplanned medication changes influenced these responses was unclear.
Does catheter-based radiofrequency renal denervation reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients when accounting for unplanned medication changes?
Does catheter-based radiofrequency renal denervation reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients when accounting for unplanned medication changes?
The effectiveness of renal denervation for blood pressure reduction is evident when the confounding effect of unplanned antihypertensive medication changes is accounted for.
Adjusting for medication changes unmasks substantial BP reductions with RDN; reinforces its efficacy in hypertension trials.
BACKGROUND: Catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) has emerged as a promising treatment option for hypertension. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results on blood pressure (BP) reduction. Patient- and procedure-related confounders have been implied as the potential sources of inconsistent BP responses. We aimed to investigated whether unplanned and frequent medication changes in RDN studies affected the BP response to RDN by conducting sensitivity and subgroup analyses, according to antihypertensive medication change rates in a meta-analysis of RCTs. METHODS: We searched the PUBMED, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases up to May 2018. RCTs that studied the effects of RDN on hypertensive patients were included. A meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: = 0%). In contrast, the pooled analysis of the 12 studies and the subgroup analysis of eight studies with > 10% medication change rates both had a high level of heterogeneity and no significant BP reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of RDN was demonstrated across a broad range of antihypertensive medications used at baseline after removing the confounder of unplanned medication changes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: