ArticleOpen heart
Renal denervation and blood pressure reduction in resistant hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Renal denervation achieves its antiarrhythmic effect through attenuating macrophage activation and neuroinflammation in stellate ganglia in chronic heart failure.Cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Management Strategies for Treatment-Resistant Hypertension: Making Optimal Use of the Evidence.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated the use of catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation compared to a control group and reported blood pressure results at follow-up. Data was extracted from relevant studies and pooled estimates for blood pressure were determined using the inverse variance method for meta-analysis with mean difference.
resultsWe identified 12 studies (three randomised controlled trials (n=688), eight prospective observational studies (n=478) and one observational study with matched controls (n=310)). Data from SYMPLICITY HTN-3, the only high-quality blinded randomised control trial suggests that there is no significant difference in change in systolic (-2.30 95% CI -6.90 to 2.30 mm Hg) or diastolic (-1.96 95% CI -4.98 to 1.06 mm Hg) blood pressure at 6 months. The pooled data from two unblinded trials of lower quality showed significant reduction in change in systolic (-27.36 95% CI -37.08 to -24.61 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (-9.62 95% CI -14.51 to -4.72 mm Hg). In terms of safety, SYMPLICITY HTN-3 found no significant differences between treatment and control group in terms of death, myocardial infarction, new onset renal disease, stroke and hypertensive emergencies.
conclusionsIn conclusion, while poor quality unblinded studies provide evidence that renal denervation using catheter-based systems is effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure in resistant hypertension, the largest randomised controlled trial to date (SYMPLICITY HTN-3) failed to demonstrate any benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.