ArticleJournal of hypertension2025
Long-term safety and efficacy of renal sympathetic denervation in comparison to a population-based cohort: a propensity-matching approach.
Article in Journal of hypertension, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo evaluate the long-term changes in risk of cardiovascular outcomes and blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients treated with renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) as compared to hypertensive controls from a population-based cohort.
methodsThis prospective cohort study included patients with office systolic blood pressure (SBP) at least 140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP at least 90 mmHg. Patients treated with RDN were matched to hypertensive controls from the population-based Rotterdam Study using one-to-many variable-ratio propensity score matching. The primary safety outcome was a composite endpoint of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, stroke, renal failure and mortality. The primary efficacy outcome was the 5-year change in office SBP.
resultsA total of 53 RDN patients were matched to 238 population-based controls. Median age [25th-75th percentile] was 60.5 [56.5-68.4] years (46% female). Baseline BP ±SD was 166.1/95.5 ± 20.6/10.9 mmHg. Patients were prescribed 2.8 [1.5-4.5] defined daily dosages of antihypertensive drugs. The incidence of the primary safety outcome was similar among the RDN group and the control group at 5 years [13 vs. 18%; hazard ratio 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-2.38; P = 0.87]. The 5-year change in SBP was -12.0 [-18.0, -6.0] mmHg in the RDN group ( P < 0.001) and -14.9 [-22.5 to -7.3] mmHg in the control group ( P < 0.001), with no significant between-group difference [2.9 (-6.6 to 12.4) mmHg; P = 0.55].
conclusionPatients with uncontrolled hypertension undergoing RDN did not have a significantly lower risk for future adverse cardiovascular events as compared to hypertensive controls from a population-based study. No difference in office BP was observed at 5 years. While real-world observational data could provide valuable insights, randomized trials are needed to confirm the role of RDN in improving long-term outcomes.
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.