Oliveras Anna, Armario Pedro, Clarà Albert, Sans-Atxer Laia, Vázquez Susana, Pascual Julio, De la Sierra Alejandro
aHypertension Unit, Nephrology Department, Hospital Universitari del Mar, Barcelona IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Spanish Research Network REDINREN (RD12/0021/0024) bInternal Medicine Department, Vascular Risk Area, Hospital Moisés Broggi, Consorci Sanitari Integral cVascular Surgery Department, Hospital Universitari del Mar, Barcelona IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute) dInternal Medicine Department, Hospital Mútua Terrassa, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain *Julio Pascual and Alejandro De la Sierra contributed equally to this work, and are the colast authors.
J Hypertens. 2016 Sep;34(9):1863-71. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001025.
Both renal denervation (RDN) and spironolactone have been proposed for the treatment of resistant hypertension. However, they have not been compared in a randomized clinical trial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of spironolactone versus RDN in patients with resistant hypertension.
A total of 24 patients with office SBP at least 150 mmHg and 24-h SBP at least 140 mmHg despite receiving at least three full-dose antihypertensive drugs, one a diuretic, but without aldosterone antagonists, were randomized to receive RDN or spironolactone (50 mg) as add-on therapy. Primary endpoint was change in 24-h SBP at 6 months. Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using generalized linear models adjusted by age, sex, and baseline values.
Spironolactone was more effective than RDN in reducing 24-h SBP and 24-h DBP: mean baseline-adjusted differences between the two groups were -17.9 mmHg (95%CI -30.9 to -4.9); P = 0.010 and -6.6 mmHg (95%CI -12.9 to -0.3); P = 0.041, for 24-h SBP and 24-h DBP, respectively. As regards changes in office blood pressure, mean baseline-adjusted differences between the two groups were -12.1 mmHg (95%CI -29.1 to 5.1); P = 0.158 and of -5.3 mmHg (95%CI -16.3 to 5.8); P = 0.332, for office SBP and office DBP, respectively. Otherwise, the decrease of estimated glomerular filtration rate was greater in the spironolactone group; mean baseline-adjusted difference between the two groups was -10.7 ml/min per 1.73 m (95%CI -20.1 to -1.4); P = 0.027.
We conclude that spironolactone is more effective than RDN to reduce 24-h SBP and 24-h DBP in patients with resistant hypertension. Therefore, spironolactone should be the fourth antihypertensive drug to prescribe if deemed well tolerated' in all patients with resistant hypertension before considering RDN.
肾去神经支配术(RDN)和螺内酯均被提议用于治疗顽固性高血压。然而,它们尚未在随机临床试验中进行比较。我们旨在比较螺内酯与RDN对顽固性高血压患者的疗效。
共有24例诊室收缩压至少为150 mmHg且24小时收缩压至少为140 mmHg的患者,尽管接受了至少三种全剂量抗高血压药物治疗,其中一种为利尿剂,但未使用醛固酮拮抗剂,将其随机分为接受RDN或螺内酯(50 mg)作为附加治疗。主要终点是6个月时24小时收缩压的变化。使用经年龄、性别和基线值调整的广义线性模型对治疗组之间进行比较。
在降低24小时收缩压和24小时舒张压方面,螺内酯比RDN更有效:两组之间经基线调整后的平均差异分别为-17.9 mmHg(95%CI -30.9至-4.9);P = 0.010和-6.6 mmHg(95%CI -12.9至-0.3);P = 0.041,分别针对24小时收缩压和24小时舒张压。关于诊室血压的变化,两组之间经基线调整后的平均差异分别为-12.1 mmHg(95%CI -29.1至5.1);P = 0.158和-5.3 mmHg(95%CI -[16.3]至5.8);P = 0.332,分别针对诊室收缩压和诊室舒张压。此外,螺内酯组估算肾小球滤过率的下降幅度更大;两组之间经基线调整后的平均差异为-10.7 ml/min per 1.73 m²(95%CI -20.1至-1.4);P = 0.027。
我们得出结论,在顽固性高血压患者中,螺内酯在降低24小时收缩压和24小时舒张压方面比RDN更有效。因此,在考虑RDN之前,对于所有耐受性良好的顽固性高血压患者,如果认为螺内酯耐受性良好,应将其作为第四种抗高血压药物处方。