Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30947915›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American College of Cardiology2019

Sham-Controlled Randomized Trials of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Patients With Hypertension.

Partha Sardar, Deepak L Bhatt, Ajay J Kirtane, Kevin F Kennedy, Saurav Chatterjee, Jay Giri, Peter A Soukas, William B White, Sahil A Parikh, Herbert D Aronow

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06208501 (The Predictive Role of Proteomics in Blood Pressure Response of Hypertensive Patients Undergoing Renal Denervation.), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

NCT06208501 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Predictive Role of Proteomics in Blood Pressure Response of Hypertensive Patients Undergoing Renal Denervation.

TypeobservationalSponsorHippocration General HospitalRan2023 to 2025Enrolled100ConditionsHypertension, Renal Denervation, ProteomicsArmsUrine sample for proteomic analysis, ABPM, OBPM
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Randomized Blinded Placebo-Controlled Trials of Renal Sympathetic Denervation for Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. The state of renal sympathetic denervation for the management of patients with hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Renal denervation beyond resistant hypertension: should drug intolerance redefine eligibility?International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Is Renal Denervation Effective in Treating Resistant Hypertension?Electrolyte & blood pressure : E & BP · 2024
    Review
  10. Renal denervation in patients with chronic kidney disease: current evidence and future perspectives.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. New Aspects in the Management of Hypertension in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease not on Renal Replacement Therapy.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Imaging strategies for safety surveillance after renal artery denervation.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Device-based therapies for arterial hypertension.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Partha SardarCardiovascular Institute, Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Deepak L BhattBrigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ajay J KirtaneColumbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York.
Kevin F KennedyMid America Heart and Vascular Institute, St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri.
Saurav ChatterjeeDepartment of Cardiology, Saint Francis Hospital, Teaching Affiliate, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Hartford, Connecticut.
Jay GiriPenn Cardiovascular Outcomes, Quality and Evaluative Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Cardiovascular Medicine Division, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Peter A SoukasDivision of Cardiology, The Miriam Hospital/Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
William B WhiteCalhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut.
Sahil A ParikhColumbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York.
Herbert D AronowCardiovascular Institute, Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Electronic address: Herbert.Aronow@lifespan.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are conflicting data regarding the relative effectiveness of renal sympathetic denervation (RSD) in patients with hypertension.

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the blood pressure (BP) response after RSD in sham-controlled randomized trials.

methodsDatabases were searched through June 30, 2018. Randomized trials (RCTs) with ≥50 patients comparing catheter-based RSD with a sham control were included. The authors calculated summary treatment estimates as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects meta-analysis.

resultsThe analysis included 977 patients from 6 trials. The reduction in 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) was significantly greater for patients treated with RSD than sham procedure (WMD -3.65 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.33 to -1.98; p < 0.001). Compared with sham, RSD was also associated with a significant decrease in daytime ASBP (WMD -4.07 mm Hg, 95% CI: -6.46 to -1.68; p < 0.001), office systolic BP (WMD -5.53 mm Hg, 95% CI: -8.18 to -2.87; p < 0.001), 24-h ambulatory diastolic BP (WMD -1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.06 to -0.35; p = 0.01), daytime ambulatory diastolic BP (WMD -1.57 mm Hg, 95% CI: -2.73 to -0.42; p = 0.008), and office diastolic BP (WMD -3.37 mm Hg, 95% CI: -4.86 to -1.88; p < 0.001). Compared with first-generation trials, a significantly greater reduction in daytime ASBP was observed with RSD in second-generation trials (6.12 mm Hg vs. 2.14 mm Hg; p interaction = 0.04); however, this interaction was not significant for 24-h ASBP (4.85 mm Hg vs. 2.23 mm Hg; p interaction = 0.13).

conclusionsRSD significantly reduced blood pressure compared with sham control. Results of this meta-analysis should inform the design of larger, pivotal trials to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of RSD in patients with hypertension.

Indexed as

DenervationHumansHypertensionKidneyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topichypertensionrenal denervation

Identifiers

PMID30947915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.