Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24067345›Full record

ArticleJournal of human hypertension2014

Blood pressure changes after renal denervation at 10 European expert centers.

A Persu, Y Jin, M Azizi, M Baelen, S Völz, A Elvan, F Severino, J Rosa, A Adiyaman, F E Fadl Elmula and 16 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.6field-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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. SCMR Position Paper (2020) on clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors at 11 institutions in 8 countries.

A Persu1] Pole of Cardiovascular Research, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium [2] Division of Cardiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Y JinStudies Coordinating Centre, Research Unit Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
M AziziFaculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
M Baelen1] Pole of Cardiovascular Research, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium [2] Division of Cardiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
S VölzDepartment of Cardiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
A ElvanDepartment of Cardiology, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
F SeverinoPole of Cardiovascular Research, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
J RosaThird Department of Internal Medicine, General Faculty Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
A AdiyamanDepartment of Cardiology, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
F E Fadl ElmulaDepartment of Cardiology, Ullevål University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
A TaylorBHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
A Pechère-BertschiHypertension Unit, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
G WuerznerService of Nephrology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
F JokhajiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
T KahanDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
J RenkinPole of Cardiovascular Research, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
M MongeFaculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
P WidimskýThird Department of Internal Medicine, General Faculty Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
L JacobsStudies Coordinating Centre, Research Unit Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
M BurnierService of Nephrology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
P B MarkBHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
S E KjeldsenDepartment of Cardiology, Ullevål University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
B AnderssonDepartment of Cardiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
M SapovalFaculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
J A Staessen1] Studies Coordinating Centre, Research Unit Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium [2] Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
European Network COordinating research on Renal Denervation (ENCOReD)
UCLouvain · BEDélégation Paris 5 · FRKU Leuven · BEGeneral University Hospital in Prague · CZIsala · NLKarolinska Institutet · SESahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CH

Funding

European Research Council 294713
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We did a subject-level meta-analysis of the changes (Δ) in blood pressure (BP) observed 3 and 6 months after renal denervation (RDN) at 10 European centers. Recruited patients (n=109; 46.8% women; mean age 58.2 years) had essential hypertension confirmed by ambulatory BP. From baseline to 6 months, treatment score declined slightly from 4.7 to 4.4 drugs per day. Systolic/diastolic BP fell by 17.6/7.1 mm Hg for office BP, and by 5.9/3.5, 6.2/3.4, and 4.4/2.5 mm Hg for 24-h, daytime and nighttime BP (P0.03 for all). In 47 patients with 3- and 6-month ambulatory measurements, systolic BP did not change between these two time points (P0.08). Normalization was a systolic BP of <140 mm Hg on office measurement or <130 mm Hg on 24-h monitoring and improvement was a fall of 10 mm Hg, irrespective of measurement technique. For office BP, at 6 months, normalization, improvement or no decrease occurred in 22.9, 59.6 and 22.9% of patients, respectively; for 24-h BP, these proportions were 14.7, 31.2 and 34.9%, respectively. Higher baseline BP predicted greater BP fall at follow-up; higher baseline serum creatinine was associated with lower probability of improvement of 24-h BP (odds ratio for 20-μmol l(-1) increase, 0.60; P=0.05) and higher probability of experiencing no BP decrease (OR, 1.66; P=0.01). In conclusion, BP responses to RDN include regression-to-the-mean and remain to be consolidated in randomized trials based on ambulatory BP monitoring. For now, RDN should remain the last resort in patients in whom all other ways to control BP failed, and it must be cautiously used in patients with renal impairment.

Indexed as

DenervationAntihypertensive AgentsBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryCombined Modality TherapyEssential HypertensionEuropeFemaleHumansHypertensionKidneyMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID24067345
PMCPMC3932403
OpenAlexW2136971934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.