Lambert Thomas, Nahler Alexander, Reiter Christian, Gammer Verena, Blessberger Hermann, Kammler Jürgen, Grund Michael, Saleh Karim, Schwarz Stefan, Steinwender Clemens
1st Medical Department-Cardiology, Linz General Hospital, Johannes Kepler University School of Medicine Linz, Linz, Austria.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Sep;86(3):E126-30. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26030. Epub 2015 May 29.
Renal denervation (RDN) is a promising treatment option in addition to medical antihypertensive treatment in patients suffering from resistant hypertension. Despite the growing interest in RDN, the negative result of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial led to a debate on the efficacy of RDN.
We systematically investigated the effects of RDN, evaluated by 24-hr ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM), in a consecutive series of patients with resistant hypertension, which was defined by a mean office systolic blood pressure (SBP) >160 mm Hg (>150 mm Hg in patients with diabetes). Patients with a mean 24-hr SBP of less than 130 mm Hg at baseline were classified as pseudo-resistant, while all other patients were classified as true-resistant. After six months, we analyzed the response rates in true-resistant and in pseudo-resistant patients, respectively, by the means of 24-hr ABPM. Thereby, patients with a reduction of more than 5 mm Hg in 24-hr SBP were classified as responders.
RDN was performed in 106 patients. By 24-hr ABPM, 20 patients (18.9%) were classified as pseudo-resistant patients. In this cohort, we only found two responders (response rate 10%) six months after RDN. By contrast, in true-resistant patients, the response rate was almost 60% and the mean BP reduction was -18.6/-9 mm Hg in 24-hr ABPM.
We found a significant BP reduction in almost 60% of patients with true-resistant hypertension, but only in 10% in patients with pseudo-resistant hypertension. According to our results, patient selection seems to be crucial for acceptable response rates after RDN.
对于顽固性高血压患者,除药物抗高血压治疗外,肾去神经支配术(RDN)是一种有前景的治疗选择。尽管对RDN的兴趣日益增加,但Symplicity HTN-3试验的阴性结果引发了关于RDN疗效的争论。
我们通过24小时动态血压监测(ABPM)系统地研究了RDN对一系列连续性顽固性高血压患者的影响,顽固性高血压定义为平均诊室收缩压(SBP)>160 mmHg(糖尿病患者>150 mmHg)。基线时平均24小时SBP低于130 mmHg的患者被归类为假性顽固性高血压,而所有其他患者被归类为真性顽固性高血压。六个月后,我们分别通过24小时ABPM分析了真性顽固性高血压和假性顽固性高血压患者的反应率。因此,24小时SBP降低超过5 mmHg的患者被归类为反应者。
106例患者接受了RDN。通过24小时ABPM,20例患者(18.9%)被归类为假性顽固性高血压患者。在这个队列中,RDN六个月后我们仅发现两名反应者(反应率10%)。相比之下,在真性顽固性高血压患者中,反应率近60%,24小时ABPM中平均血压降低为-18.6/-9 mmHg。
我们发现近60%的真性顽固性高血压患者血压显著降低,但假性顽固性高血压患者中只有10%血压降低。根据我们的结果,患者选择对于RDN术后获得可接受的反应率似乎至关重要。