Abstract
Background Resistant hypertension is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and mortality. Yet, its management is challenging. This study aims to establish the comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic and interventional treatments by conducting a network meta-analysis.
Methods MEDLINE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science Core Collection were systematically searched in March 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing treatment options for management of resistant hypertension were included. Outcomes were blood pressure changes, measured in the office and in 24h ambulatory blood pressure measurement. We applied a frequentist random effects model to perform a network meta-analysis combining placebo medication and sham procedure as the reference comparator.
Results From 4771 records, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria with 3458 included patients in total. 12 active treatment alternatives were analyzed. Among all comparators, spironolactone had the highest-ranking probability and was considered the most effective treatment to reduce office systolic blood pressure (−13.30 mmHg [−17.89; −8.72]; P < 0.0001) and 24h systolic blood pressure (−8.46 mmHg [−12.54; −4.38]; P < 0.0001) in patients with resistant hypertension.
Conclusion Among all pharmacologic and interventional treatments, spironolactone is the most effective in reducing office and 24h systolic blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension. More comparative trials and especially trials with long-term follow up are needed.
Competing Interest Statement
BMWS received lecture fees and honoraria from ADVITOS, Amgen, Bayer Vital, Berlin Chemie, CytoSorbents, Daichii Sankyo, Miltenyi, Pocard. JB has received honoraria for lectures / consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Corvia, CVRx, Novartis, Norgine, Pfizer, Roche, Vifor and research support for the department from Zoll, CVRx, Abiomed, Norgine.
Funding Statement
There is no funding source in this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
A meta-analysis does not require ethical approval.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets were derived from sources from the trial journal publications and their supplementary appendices. The data of this study will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
