Suppr超能文献

比较肾动脉去神经术假手术对照随机试验中高血压抵抗者和非抵抗者的亚组荟萃分析。

A Subgroup Meta-Analysis Comparing the Renal Denervation Sham-Controlled Randomized Trials Among Those With Resistant and Nonresistant Hypertension.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine and.

Division of Cardiology, Heart and Vascular Institute, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2023 Mar 15;191:119-124. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.12.032. Epub 2023 Jan 18.

Abstract

Renal denervation (RD) has been investigated as an invasive blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment for hypertension (HTN). Resistant HTN (RHTN) has been defined as uncontrolled BP despite use of 3 antihypertensive medications of different classes, including a diuretic, at maximum tolerated doses. The impact of RD on RHTN remains under investigation. Ten sham-controlled trials testing RD were included in this trial-level analysis. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted to test whether efficacy of RD differed in patients with and without RHTN. The primary end points were change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) using raw mean difference (RMD) between sham control and RD. Ten studies (6 RHTN and 4 nonresistant HTN) were identified that included 1,544 participants (1,001 RHTN and 543 essential HTN) with cumulative mean age (±SD) of 57 years (±3). Cochran risk of bias assessment showed 69% of the domains to be at low risk of bias. The RMD for 24-hour SBP between RD and sham control was statistically significant for nonresistant HTN trials (-4.19 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.07 to -2.30) but was not statistically significant for RHTN trials (-1.86 mm Hg; 95% CI - 3.89 to 0.16). Despite the numerical difference in the subgroups, the interaction between subgroups failed to reach statistical significance (p = 0.10). The RMD for 24-hour DBP between RD and sham control was statistically significant for nonresistant HTN trials (-2.60 mm Hg; 95% CI -3.79 to -1.42) but was not statistically significant for RHTN trials (-0.67 mm Hg; 95% CI -1.84 to 0.50). The interaction between subgroups was statistically significant (p = 0.02). Our analysis indicates RD is a less effective intervention for patients with RHTN. These data may be beneficial for clinicians to consider when assessing patients with RHTN for RD.

摘要

肾动脉去神经术(RD)已被研究作为一种侵入性的降压治疗方法,用于治疗高血压(HTN)。难治性高血压(RHTN)被定义为尽管使用了 3 种不同类别的降压药物,包括利尿剂,且剂量已达最大耐受量,但血压仍未得到控制。RD 对 RHTN 的影响仍在研究中。本试验水平分析纳入了 10 项假对照试验来测试 RD。进行了一项预先指定的亚组分析,以检验 RD 在有和无 RHTN 的患者中的疗效是否不同。主要终点是使用假对照和 RD 之间的原始平均差异(RMD)来测量 24 小时动态收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)的变化。确定了 10 项研究(6 项 RHTN 和 4 项非耐药 HTN),共纳入 1544 名参与者(1001 名 RHTN 和 543 名原发性 HTN),累积平均年龄(±SD)为 57 岁(±3)。Cochran 风险偏倚评估显示,69%的研究领域存在低偏倚风险。RD 与假对照治疗非耐药 HTN 试验的 24 小时 SBP 的 RMD 有统计学意义(-4.19mmHg;95%置信区间[CI] -6.07 至 -2.30),但对 RHTN 试验无统计学意义(-1.86mmHg;95%CI -3.89 至 0.16)。尽管亚组之间存在数值差异,但亚组间的交互作用没有达到统计学意义(p=0.10)。RD 与假对照治疗非耐药 HTN 试验的 24 小时 DBP 的 RMD 有统计学意义(-2.60mmHg;95%置信区间[CI] -3.79 至 -1.42),但对 RHTN 试验无统计学意义(-0.67mmHg;95%CI -1.84 至 0.50)。亚组间的交互作用具有统计学意义(p=0.02)。我们的分析表明,RD 对 RHTN 患者的干预效果较差。这些数据可能有助于临床医生在评估 RHTN 患者是否接受 RD 治疗时参考。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验