Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26739586›Full record

ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2016

Renal Denervation for Treatment of Hypertension: a Second Start and New Challenges.

Alexandre Persu, Sverre Kjeldsen, Jan A Staessen, Michel Azizi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current hypertension reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Molecular Mechanisms of Kidney Injury and Repair in Arterial Hypertension.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alexandre PersuPole of Cardiovascular Research, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Sverre KjeldsenDepartment of Cardiology, Ullevaal University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jan A StaessenStudies Coordinating Centre, Division of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Michel AziziParis-Descartes University, F-75005, Paris, France. michel.azizi@egp.aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the publication of the randomized controlled but open-label trial Symplicity HTN-2, catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation was proposed as a novel treatment for drug-resistant hypertension. Thousands of procedures were routinely performed in Europe, Australia and Asia, and many observational studies were published. A sudden shift from overoptimistic views to radical scepticism occurred later, when the large US randomized sham-controlled trial Symplicity HTN-3 failed to meet its primary blood pressure lowering efficacy endpoint. Experts are divided on the reasons accounting for the large discrepancy between the results of initial studies and those of Symplicity HTN-3. Indeed, the blood pressure lowering effect associated with renal denervation was overestimated in initial trials due to various patient and physician-related biases, whereas it could have been underestimated in Symplicity HTN-3, which was well designed but not rigorously executed. Still, there is a large consensus on the need to further study catheter-based renal denervation in more controlled conditions, with particular emphasis on identification of predictors of blood pressure response. US and European experts have recently issued very similar recommendations on design of upcoming trials, procedural aspects, drug treatment, patient population and inclusion-exclusion criteria. Application of these new standards may represent a second chance for renal denervation to demonstrate--or not--its efficacy and safety in various patient populations. With its highly standardized treatment regimen, the French trial DENERHTN paved the way for this new approach and may inspire upcoming studies testing novel renal denervation systems in different populations.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlood PressureDenervationHumansHypertensionKidneyAmbulatory blood pressureMild hypertensionRenal denervationRenal nerve stimulationRenal sympathetic denervationResistant hypertensionSympathetic nervous system

Identifiers

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.