Tu Qinxian, Duan Yizhuo, Shan Jingru, Jiang Xiongjing, Dong Hui, Zou Yubao
Department of Cardiology, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2025 Nov;27(11):e70178. doi: 10.1111/jch.70178.
This study aimed to compare the blood pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of different renal denervation (RDN) techniques. We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid, and Embase up to September 4, 2025. The primary outcome was the change in 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure from baseline to the end of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included changes in 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure and the incidence of major adverse events. Two reviewers independently conducted study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. A network meta-analysis, along with sensitivity and subgroup analyses, was performed. Our analysis indicated that both radiofrequency RDN of the main renal artery and branches (RFB-RDN) and ultrasound RDN (US-RDN) were associated with significant reductions in 24 h ambulatory blood pressure, with comparable efficacy between the two approaches, whereas radiofrequency RDN of the main renal artery (RFM-RDN) and alcohol-mediated RDN (ALC-RDN) showed limited efficacy. Compared with sham, US-RDN and RFM-RDN showed trends toward fewer adverse events, whereas RFB-RDN and ALC-RDN exhibited numerically higher risks; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Subgroup analyses suggested that hypertension subtype, ethnicity, and baseline blood pressure may influence treatment effects, particularly for RFB-RDN.
本研究旨在比较不同肾去神经支配(RDN)技术的降压疗效和安全性。我们系统检索了截至2025年9月4日的PubMed、Ovid和Embase数据库。主要结局是24小时动态收缩压从基线到随访结束的变化。次要结局包括24小时动态舒张压的变化以及主要不良事件的发生率。两名研究者独立进行研究筛选、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。进行了网络荟萃分析以及敏感性和亚组分析。我们的分析表明,主肾动脉及其分支的射频RDN(RFB-RDN)和超声RDN(US-RDN)均与24小时动态血压的显著降低相关,两种方法疗效相当,而主肾动脉射频RDN(RFM-RDN)和酒精介导的RDN(ALC-RDN)疗效有限。与假手术相比,US-RDN和RFM-RDN不良事件有减少趋势,而RFB-RDN和ALC-RDN不良事件风险在数值上更高;然而,这些差异未达到统计学意义。亚组分析表明,高血压亚型、种族和基线血压可能影响治疗效果,特别是对于RFB-RDN。