Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34101968›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2021

Eligibility for Baroreflex Activation Therapy and medication adherence in patients with apparently resistant hypertension.

Ann-Kathrin Schäfer, Tim Kuczera, Rebecca Wurm-Kuczera, Dieter Müller, Ellen Born, Mark Lipphardt, Marlene Plüss, Manuel Wallbach, Michael Koziolek

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Impact of medication adherence on the efficacy of Baroreflex activation therapy.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ann-Kathrin SchäferDepartment of Nephrology & Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2676-9670
Tim KuczeraDepartment of Nephrology & Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany.
Rebecca Wurm-KuczeraDepartment of Hematology & Oncology, University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany.
Dieter MüllerGIZ Nord Poison Centre, Göttingen, Germany.
Ellen BornDepartment of Nephrology & Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany.
Mark LipphardtDepartment of Nephrology & Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany.
Marlene PlüssDepartment of Nephrology & Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany.
Manuel WallbachDepartment of Nephrology & Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany.
Michael KoziolekDepartment of Nephrology & Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany.
University of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uncontrolled hypertension is a main risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity. Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) is an effective therapy option addressing true resistant hypertension. We evaluated patients' eligibility for BAT in a staged assessment as well as adherence to antihypertensive drug therapy. Therefore, we analyzed files of 345 patients, attending the hypertension clinic at University Medicine Göttingen. Additionally, gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric urine analyses of selected individuals were performed evaluating their adherence. Most common cause for a revoked BAT recommendation was blood pressure (BP) control by drug adjustment (54.2%). Second leading cause was presence of secondary hypertension (31.6%). Patients to whom BAT was recommended (59 (17.1%)) were significantly more often male (67.8% vs. 43.3%, P = .0063), had a higher body mass index (31.8 ± 5.8 vs. 30.0 ± 5.7 kg/m², P = .0436), a higher systolic office (168.7 ± 24.7 vs. 147.7 ± 24.1 mmHg, P < .0001), and 24h ambulatory BP (155.0 ± 14.6 vs. 144.4 ± 16.8 mmHg, P = .0031), took more antihypertensive drugs (5.8 ± 1.3 vs. 4.4 ± 1.4, P < .0001), and suffered more often from numerous concomitant diseases. Eventually, 27 (7.8%) received a BAT system. In the toxicological analysis of 75 patients, mean adherence was 75.1%. 16 patients (21.3%) showed non-adherence. Thus, only a small number of patients eventually received a BAT system, as treatable reasons for apparently resistant hypertension could be identified frequently. This study is-to our knowledge-the first report of a staged assessment of patients' suitability for BAT and underlines the need for a careful examination and indication. Non-adherence was proven to be a relevant issue concerning apparently resistant hypertension and therefore non-eligibility for interventional antihypertensive therapy.

Indexed as

BaroreflexHypertensionAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHumansMaleMedication AdherenceAntihypertensive Agentsadherenceantihypertensive medicationbaroreflex activation therapyresistant hypertensionuncontrolled hypertension

Identifiers

PMID34101968
PMCPMC8678808
OpenAlexW3168816052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.