Search

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world's leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies. © 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Background: Renal denervation has been shown to lower blood pressure in the presence of antihypertensive medications; however, long-term safety and efficacy data from randomised trials of renal denervation are lacking. In this pre-specified analysis of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED study, we compared changes in blood pressure, antihypertensive drug use, and safety up to 36 months in renal denervation versus a sham control group. Methods: This randomised, single-blind, sham-controlled trial enrolled patients from 25 clinical centres in the USA, Germany, Japan, the UK, Australia, Austria, and Greece, with uncontrolled hypertension and office systolic blood pressure between 150 mm Hg and 180 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher. Eligible patients had to have 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure between 140 mm Hg and less than 170 mm Hg, while taking one to three antihypertensive drugs with stable doses for at least 6 weeks. Patients underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiofrequency renal denervation or a sham control procedure. Patients and physicians were unmasked after 12-month follow-up and sham control patients could cross over after 12-month follow-up completion. The primary endpoint was the treatment difference in mean 24-h systolic blood pressure at 6 months between the renal denervation group and the sham control group. Statistical analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. Long-term efficacy was assessed using ambulatory and office blood pressure measurements up to 36 months. Drug surveillance was used to assess medication use. Safety events were assessed up to 36 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02439775; prospectively, an additional 260 patients are currently being randomly assigned as part of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED Expansion trial. Findings: Between July 22, 2015, and June 14, 2017, among 467 enrolled patients, 80 patients fulfilled the qualifying criteria and were randomly assigned to undergo renal denervation (n=38) or a sham control procedure (n=42). Mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly reduced from baseline in the renal denervation group, and were significantly lower than the sham control group at 24 and 36 months, despite a similar treatment intensity of antihypertensive drugs. The medication burden at 36 months was 2·13 medications (SD 1·15) in the renal denervation group and 2·55 medications (2·19) in the sham control group (p=0·26). 24 (77%) of 31 patients in the renal denervation group and 25 (93%) of 27 patients in the sham control group adhered to medication at 36 months. At 36 months, the ambulatory systolic blood pressure reduction was −18·7 mm Hg (SD 12·4) for the renal denervation group (n=30) and −8·6 mm Hg (14·6) for the sham control group (n=32; adjusted treatment difference −10·0 mm Hg, 95% CI −16·6 to −3·3; p=0·0039). Treatment differences between the renal denervation group and sham control group at 36 months were −5·9 mm Hg (95% CI −10·1 to −1·8; p=0·0055) for mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure, −11·0 mm Hg (−19·8 to −2·1; p=0·016) for morning systolic blood pressure, and −11·8 mm Hg (−19·0 to −4·7; p=0·0017) for night-time systolic blood pressure. There were no short-term or long-term safety issues associated with renal denervation. Interpretation: Radiofrequency renal denervation compared with sham control produced a clinically meaningful and lasting blood pressure reduction up to 36 months of follow-up, independent of concomitant antihypertensive medications and without major safety events. Renal denervation could provide an adjunctive treatment modality in the management of patients with hypertension. Funding: Medtronic. © 2022 Elsevier Ltd

Recent randomized sham-controlled trials have demonstrated significant blood pressure reductions following renal denervation (RDN) in patients with hypertension, both in the presence and absence of antihypertensive therapy. These new data encouraged us to revisit previously published insights into potential clinical trial confounding factors that informed the design and conduct of forthcoming trials. Initially identified confounders related to procedural technique, medication variability, and selected patient subgroups have been addressed in contemporary trial design. Regarding procedural method and technology, blood pressure reductions may be improved by ensuring circumferential lesion creation in the distal renal arteries and branch vessels. Safety of the RDN procedure has been demonstrated in multiple independent meta-analyses including thousands of treated patients with low reported rates of renal vessel complications and maintenance of renal function. However, a newer generation of RDN trials has also introduced insights related to medication adherence, patient selection, and the definition of treatment response. Evolving evidence indicates that RDN therapy may be considered in higher risk populations of uncontrolled hypertension regardless of ethnicity and in patients expressing a strong preference for a nondrug therapy option. Despite advances in procedural technique and clinical trial conduct, inconsistent antihypertensive-drug adherence behavior remains perhaps the most critical clinical trial design issue for device-based hypertension therapies. As the balance in clinical equipoise increasingly favors RDN, justification of sham-controlled trial designs will be revisited, and novel study designs may be required to evaluate the safety and efficacy of novel devices and procedures intended to address the escalating prevalence of poorly controlled hypertension. © 2020 International Anesthesia Research Society.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. © 2020, The Author(s).

Initial studies of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) for uncontrolled HTN using radiofrequency ablation in the main renal arteries showed that RDN was effective in lowering office blood pressure (BP). However, the first randomized sham-controlled trial, SYMPLICITY-HTN-3, did not show significantly lower office or 24-h ambulatory systolic BP compared with sham treatment. Subsequent studies in both animals and humans demonstrated the potential importance of more distal and branch renal artery radiofrequency ablation, and a second-generation multielectrode system became available. Two recent randomized sham-controlled trials in patients not taking antihypertensive drugs (SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED) or continuing to take drugs (SPYRAL HTN-ON MED) performed RDN with the second-generation radiofrequency ablation system using an ablation protocol that included treatment of the distal renal artery as well as the branch renal arteries. These studies showed that RDN significantly reduced office and 24-h ambulatory BP compared with sham treatment. Another recent randomized sham-controlled trial in patients not receiving medications showed that RDN with catheter-based ultrasound (RADIANCE-HTN SOLO) applied in just the main renal arteries significantly lowered daytime ambulatory and office BP compared with sham treatment. These trials have renewed clinical and scientific interest in defining the appropriate role of RDN in hypertension treatment. In addition, other important issues will need to be addressed in the future such as the development of tests to determine the extent of RDN at the time of the procedure and the potential of renal nerve fibers to regain their patency at some later stage following the ablation procedure. © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation

Background: Previous catheter-based renal denervation studies have reported variable efficacy results. We aimed to evaluate safety and blood pressure response after renal denervation or sham control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on antihypertensive medications with drug adherence testing. Methods: In this international, randomised, single-blind, sham-control, proof-of-concept trial, patients with uncontrolled hypertension (aged 20–80 years) were enrolled at 25 centres in the USA, Germany, Japan, UK, Australia, Austria, and Greece. Eligible patients had an office systolic blood pressure of between 150 mm Hg and 180 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher; a 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure of between 140 mm Hg and 170 mm Hg at second screening; and were on one to three antihypertensive drugs with stable doses for at least 6 weeks. Patients underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to undergo renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were masked to randomisation assignments. The primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure change from baseline (measured at screening visit two), based on ambulatory blood pressure measurements assessed at 6 months, as compared between treatment groups. Drug surveillance was used to assess medication adherence. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed through 6 months as per major adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439775, and follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between July 22, 2015, and June 14, 2017, 467 patients were screened and enrolled. This analysis presents results for the first 80 patients randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) and sham control (n=42). Office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months in the renal denervation group (mean baseline-adjusted treatment differences in 24 h systolic blood pressure −7·0 mm Hg, 95% CI −12·0 to −2·1; p=0·0059, 24 h diastolic blood pressure −4·3 mm Hg, −7·8 to −0·8; p=0.0174, office systolic blood pressure −6·6 mm Hg, −12·4 to −0·9; p=0·0250, and office diastolic blood pressure −4·2 mm Hg, −7·7 to −0·7; p=0·0190). The change in blood pressure was significantly greater at 6 months in the renal denervation group than the sham-control group for office systolic blood pressure (difference −6·8 mm Hg, 95% CI −12·5 to −1·1; p=0·0205), 24 h systolic blood pressure (difference −7·4 mm Hg, −12·5 to −2·3; p=0·0051), office diastolic blood pressure (difference −3·5 mm Hg, −7·0 to −0·0; p=0·0478), and 24 h diastolic blood pressure (difference −4·1 mm Hg, −7·8 to −0·4; p=0·0292). Evaluation of hourly changes in 24 h systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure showed blood pressure reduction throughout 24 h for the renal denervation group. 3 month blood pressure reductions were not significantly different between groups. Medication adherence was about 60% and varied for individual patients throughout the study. No major adverse events were recorded in either group. Interpretation: Renal denervation in the main renal arteries and branches significantly reduced blood pressure compared with sham control with no major safety events. Incomplete medication adherence was common. Funding: Medtronic. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

This ESH update was deemed necessary with the publication of new results of sham-controlled randomized blinded prospective trials with renal denervation (RDN). Proof of concept studies and first randomized trials (some were sham-controlled) displayed discrepant results about the efficacy of RDN. Three sham-controlled randomized trials of the 2.0 generation yielded now similarity in the average blood pressure decrease following RDN. Reduction of ambulatory blood pressure was approximately 5 to 7 mmHg and of office blood pressure 10 mmHg. Such a decrease in blood pressure by pharmacologic therapy has been found to be associated with lower incidence of cardiovascular events in particular with respect to heart failure and stroke by roughly 25%. Nevertheless, some questions about renal denervation are unanswered. The heterogeneity of the blood pressure-lowering response point to the clinical need to identify predictors for efficacy, and questions on long-term safety could not have been answered due to the short duration of the sham-controlled randomized clinical trials. © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Background Previous randomised renal denervation studies did not show consistent efficacy in reducing blood pressure. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications. Methods SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED was a multicentre, international, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Patients were enrolled at 21 centres in the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Eligible patients were drug-naive or discontinued their antihypertensive medications. Patients with an office systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150 mm Hg or greater and less than 180 mm Hg, office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90 mm Hg or greater, and a mean 24-h ambulatory SBP of 140 mm Hg or greater and less than 170 mm Hg at second screening underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments. The primary endpoint, change in 24-h blood pressure at 3 months, was compared between groups. Drug surveillance was done to ensure patient compliance with absence of antihypertensive medication. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed at 3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439749. Findings Between June 25, 2015, and Jan 30, 2017, 353 patients were screened. 80 patients were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) or sham control (n=42) and followed up for 3 months. Office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 3 months in the renal denervation group: 24-h SBP −5·5 mm Hg (95% CI −9·1 to −2·0; p=0·0031), 24-h DBP −4·8 mm Hg (−7·0 to −2·6; p

The interest in RDN for hypertension has fluctuated recently, with a flurry of initial enthusiasm followed by sudden loss of interest by researchers and device manufacturers, with an almost as sudden resurgence in clinical trials activity and device innovation more recently. There is widespread consensus that this therapeutic strategy can be effective, at least for some of the technologies available. Major uncertainties remain as to the clinical role of RDN, and whether any of the emerging technologies such as AV-anastomosis formation, carotid body ablation, carotid bulb expansion, or baroreflex stimulation will have a future as effective treatment options in patients with hypertension. In our first consensus report in 2015, the European Expert Group pointed to the major unmet need of standardization of measurements, trial design and procedural performance.6 With the large number of different technologies currently in the pipeline, this need has even increased. Only through high-quality, collaborative research and openness to new methods for recruitment, patient selection, and assessment of outcomes will it be possible to establish incontrovertibly whether device therapies for hypertension are effective and what are preferred patient populations. Once the proof of concept is established, further studies with a design relevant to clinical reality will be needed to establish the place of new devices in the treatment armoury. The clinical and research community has a large responsibility to prove or disprove the value of new therapies, in order to ensure that antihypertensive devices provide future patients with the greatest benefit and the smallest risk. copy; The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.