ArticleHerz2019
Renal denervation for mild-moderate treatment-resistant hypertension : A timely intervention?
Article in Herz, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: Role of bioelectric technology in resistant hypertension (Review).Biomedical reports · 2023Review
- Unveiling the mystery of "missing" emergencies in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: a generalized phenomenon with unclarified implications.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020Article
- Recent advances in managing primary hypertension.Faculty reviews · 2020Review
- Diagnosis and management of resistant hypertension: state of the art.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRenal denervation (RDN) has been proposed as a novel antihypertensive intervention for treating resistant hypertension. It remains to be investigated which patient groups can potentially benefit from RDN. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RDN in patients with mild-moderate resistant hypertension, i. e., systolic office blood pressure (BP) of 140-160 mm Hg despite treatment with three antihypertensive drugs including one diuretic, or mean systolic BP by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) of 135-150 mm Hg.
methodsWe evaluated data from four relevant clinical studies, all conducted in Europe, comprising 185 eligible patients. The patients' age was 62.1 ± 10.3 years and 73% were male (RDN group n = 149, control group n = 36).
resultsA self-control comparison showed that RDN led to significantly reduced ABPM at the 6‑month follow-up (systolic ABPM: 147.3 ± 13.4 mm Hg vs. 136.9 ± 15.5 mm Hg; diastolic ABPM: 81.1 ± 9.6 mm Hg vs. 76.2 ± 9.7 mm Hg; p < 0.001). RDN was associated with a greater improvement in ABPM as compared with that in the control group (∆systolic-ABPM: -10.4 ± 9.4 vs. -3.5 ± 9.6 mm Hg, p < 0.001; ∆diastolic-ABPM: -5 ± 5.8 vs. -2.1 ± 5.5 mm Hg; p = 0.005, respectively). The decrease of office BP in the RDN group was also statistically significant. RDN led to a reduced number of antihypertensive medications. No severe adverse events were found during follow-up. Regression analysis showed that the available baseline characteristics did not correlate with the ABPM improvement after RDN.
conclusionRDN appears to be a safe and effective intervention for patients with mild-moderate resistant hypertension; however, randomized studies are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29255910What 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.