Key result
Second-generation BAT achieves similar systolic BP control vs first-generation systems with improved procedural safety.
Why the study?
Controlled data comparing the efficacy and safety of first- and second-generation baroreflex activation therapy systems for treatment-resistant hypertension were not available.
Does the second-generation baroreflex activation therapy system improve blood pressure reduction and safety compared to the first-generation system and sham in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension?
Cohort
Does the second-generation baroreflex activation therapy system improve blood pressure reduction and safety compared to the first-generation system and sham in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension?
Absolute Event Rate: 47% vs 50%
p-value: p=>.999
Second-generation baroreflex activation therapy provides similar blood pressure reduction to the first-generation system but with improved procedural duration and safety profile.
Supports similar BP efficacy with procedural/safety gains for second-generation BAT; extends first-generation RCT data but leaves open need for controlled trials.
Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) is a device-based therapy for patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. In a randomized, controlled trial, the first-generation system significantly reduced blood pressure (BP) versus sham. Although an open-label validation study of the second-generation system demonstrated similar BP reductions, controlled data are not presently available. Therefore, this investigation compares results of first- and second-generation BAT systems. Two cohorts of first-generation BAT system patients were generated with propensity matching to compare against the validation group of 30 second-generation subjects. The first cohort was drawn from the first-generation randomized trial sham group and the second cohort from the active therapy group. Safety and efficacy were compared for the second-generation group relative to the first generation. At 6 months, second-generation BAT outperformed first-generation sham systolic BP reduction by 20 ± 28 mm Hg (mean ± standard deviation, P = .008), while BP reduction in first- and second-generation active groups was similar. At 12 months, efficacy was comparable between all three groups after the sham group had received 6 months of therapy; 47% of second-generation patients achieved goal systolic BP of 140 mm Hg or less after 12 months, comparable to 50% of patients at goal in the first-generation group (P > .999). Implant procedure time, system/procedural safety, and pulse generator longevity improved with the second-generation system. Propensity-matched cohort analysis of the first- and second-generation BAT systems suggests similar therapeutic benefit and superior BP reduction of the second-generation system relative to sham control. Implantation procedure duration and perioperative safety were improved with the second-generation device. These findings should be validated in a prospective randomized trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wachter et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Treatment-resistant hypertension. Second-generation baroreflex activation therapy vs. First-generation baroreflex activation therapy (sham and active) was evaluated on Goal systolic BP of 140 mm Hg or less at 12 months (p=>.999). Second-generation baroreflex activation therapy achieved similar rates of goal systolic BP at 12 months compared to the first-generation active system (47% vs 50%; P > .999), with improved procedural safety.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: