PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Vukadinović, Davor
AU  - Lauder, Lucas
AU  - Kandzari, David E.
AU  - Bhatt, Deepak L.
AU  - Kirtane, Ajay
AU  - Edelman, Elazer R.
AU  - Schmieder, Roland E.
AU  - Azizi, Michel
AU  - Böhm, Michael
AU  - Mahfoud, Felix
TI  - Effects of catheter-based renal denervation in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2024.06.12.24308869
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.06.12.24308869
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/17/2024.06.12.24308869.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/17/2024.06.12.24308869.full
AB  - Background Several sham-controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) with mixed outcomes.Aim To perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of all randomized, sham-controlled trials investigating RDN with first- and second-generation devices in hypertension.Methods We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library for eligible trials. Outcomes included both efficacy (24-hour and office systolic [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and safety (all-cause death, vascular complication, renal artery stenosis >70%, hypertensive crisis) of RDN. We performed a study-level, pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis of the summary data.Results Ten trials comprising 2,478 patients with hypertension while being either off- or on-treatment were included. Compared with sham, RDN reduced 24-hour and office systolic BP by 4.4 mmHg (95%CI −6.1, −2.7, p<0.00001) and 6.6 mmHg (95%CI −9.7, −3.6, p<0.0001), respectively. The 24-hour and office diastolic BP paralleled these findings (−2.6 mmHg, 95%CI - 3.6, −1.5, p<0.00001; −3.5 mmHg, 95%CI −5.4, −1.6, p=0.0003). There was no difference in 24-hour and office SBP reduction between trials with and without concomitant antihypertensive medication (p for interaction 0.62 and 0.73, respectively). There was no relevant difference concerning vascular complications (OR 1.69, 95%CI 0.57-5.0, p=0.34), renal artery stenosis (OR 1.50, 95%CI 0.06-36.97, p=0.80), hypertensive crisis (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.30-1.38, p=0.26) and all-cause death (OR 1.76, 95%CI 0.34-9.20, p=0.50) between RDN and sham groups. Change of renal function based on eGFR was comparable between groups (p for interaction 0.84). There was significant heterogeneity between trials.Conclusions RDN safely reduces ambulatory and office SBP/DBP vs. a sham procedure in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medication.Clinical Perspective What is new?Several sham-controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) with mixed outcomes.This comprehensive meta-analysis comprising 2,478 patients shows that irrespective of the utilized method (radiofrequency-, ultrasound-or alcohol-mediated), renal denervation effectively reduced ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure.Renal denervation exhibited no additional risk concerning vascular injury or renal function impairment.What are the clinical implications?This meta-analysis supports current guidelines/consensus statements that renal denervation represents an additive treatment option in carefully selected patients with uncontrolled hypertension.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNot clinical trialFunding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data are available