Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23780578›Full record

Trial reportCirculation2013

Ambulatory blood pressure changes after renal sympathetic denervation in patients with resistant hypertension.

Felix Mahfoud, Christian Ukena, Roland E Schmieder, Bodo Cremers, Lars C Rump, Oliver Vonend, Joachim Weil, Martin Schmidt, Uta C Hoppe, Thomas Zeller and 8 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Circulation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 80 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
40.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 253 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Renal denervation for resistant hypertension.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Neuropeptide Y as an indicator of successful alterations in sympathetic nervous activity after renal sympathetic denervation.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2015
    Trial
  7. Beneficial effects of renal sympathetic denervation on cardiovascular inflammation and remodeling in essential hypertension.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2015
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Impact of medication adherence on the efficacy of Baroreflex activation therapy.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Device-based therapies for arterial hypertension.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2020
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Felix MahfoudKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Kardiologie, Angiologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Kirrberger Str, Geb 40, 66421 Homburg/Saar, Germany. Felix.Mahfoud@uks.eu
Christian Ukena
Roland E Schmieder
Bodo Cremers
Lars C Rump
Oliver Vonend
Joachim Weil
Martin Schmidt
Uta C Hoppe
Thomas Zeller
Axel Bauer
Christian Ott
Erwin Blessing
Paul A Sobotka
Henry Krum
Markus Schlaich
Murray Esler
Michael Böhm
The Ohio State University · USMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCatheter-based renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) reduces office blood pressure (BP) in patients with resistant hypertension according to office BP. Less is known about the effect of RDN on 24-hour BP measured by ambulatory BP monitoring and correlates of response in individuals with true or pseudoresistant hypertension. METHODS AND

resultsA total of 346 uncontrolled hypertensive patients, separated according to daytime ambulatory BP monitoring into 303 with true resistant (office systolic BP [SBP] 172.2±22 mm Hg; 24-hour SBP 154±16.2 mm Hg) and 43 with pseudoresistant hypertension (office SBP 161.2±20.3 mm Hg; 24-hour SBP 121.1±19.6 mm Hg), from 10 centers were studied. At 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up, office SBP was reduced by 21.5/23.7/27.3 mm Hg, office diastolic BP by 8.9/9.5/11.7 mm Hg, and pulse pressure by 13.4/14.2/14.9 mm Hg (n=245/236/90; P for all <0.001), respectively. In patients with true treatment resistance there was a significant reduction with RDN in 24-hour SBP (-10.1/-10.2/-11.7 mm Hg, P<0.001), diastolic BP (-4.8/-4.9/-7.4 mm Hg, P<0.001), maximum SBP (-11.7/-10.0/-6.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) and minimum SBP (-6.0/-9.4/-13.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. There was no effect on ambulatory BP monitoring in pseudoresistant patients, whereas office BP was reduced to a similar extent. RDN was equally effective in reducing BP in different subgroups of patients. Office SBP at baseline was the only independent correlate of BP response.

conclusionsRDN reduced office BP and improved relevant aspects of ambulatory BP monitoring, commonly linked to high cardiovascular risk, in patients with true-treatment resistant hypertension, whereas it only affected office BP in pseudoresistant hypertension.

Indexed as

AgedBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHypertensionKidneyMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSympathectomyambulatory blood pressure monitoringhypertension resistant to conventional therapysympathectomy

Identifiers

PMID23780578
OpenAlexW2169491483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.