Why the study?
After SYMPLICITY-HTN-3 failed to demonstrate clear benefit over control, second-generation multi-electrode and ultrasound systems emerged, renewing interest in defining the appropriate role of renal denervation in hypertension.
Does renal denervation with second-generation systems reduce arterial blood pressure in patients with non-controlled arterial hypertension?
Does renal denervation with second-generation systems reduce arterial blood pressure in patients with non-controlled arterial hypertension?
Second-generation renal denervation systems show renewed promise for effectively reducing blood pressure in resistant hypertension, though larger and longer trials are needed to define their appropriate clinical role.
Supports renewed consideration of second-generation renal denervation in resistant hypertension; leaves open long-term role and patient selection.
Initial studies on renal denervation (RDN) for the treatment of non-controlled arterial hypertension (HTN) through radiofrequency ablation of renal arteries demonstrated that RDN is an effective therapeutic strategy to reduce arterial blood pressure (BP). Nonetheless, the first randomized study, SYMPLICITY-HTN-3, failed to demonstrate a clear benefit for RND over the control group. Technologic evolution, with the introduction of new second generation multi-electrode devices, allowed deep energy delivery along the full circumference of the vessel. Two recent randomized studies involving patients assuming (SPYRAL HTN-ON MED) or not (SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED) antihypertensive pharmacologic treatment, demonstrated the efficacy and safety of RDN using second generation systems for radiofrequency ablation. Another recent randomized study demonstrated that RDN with ultrasounds (RADIANCE-HTN SOLO) of the main renal arteries led to a significant BP reduction compared to the control group. These studies have once again raised the interest of the scientific community towards attempting to define the appropriate role of RDN in the treatment of hypertension. Nonetheless, larger and longer clinical trials will be necessary to draw further conclusions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Versaci et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: