Assessment of arterial stiffness to predict blood pressure response to renal sympathetic denervation.
Journal
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 1969-6213
Titre abrégé: EuroIntervention
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101251040
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Oct 2022
07 Oct 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
5
3
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
entrez:
4
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recent trials support the efficacy of renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) to reduce blood pressure (BP). Nevertheless, about one third of patients are considered non-responders to RDN. Previous retrospective analyses suggest arterial stiffness could predict BP response to RDN. We prospectively assessed the potential of invasive pulse wave velocity (iPWV) to predict BP response to RDN. Additionally, we aimed to establish non-invasive models based on arterial stiffness to predict BP response to RDN. iPWV, magnetic resonance imaging-based markers of arterial stiffness and the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity were recorded prior to RDN in patients with treatment resistant hypertension. Changes in daytime BP after 3 months were analysed according to the prespecified iPWV cut-off (14.4 m/s). Regression analyses were used to establish models for non-invasive prediction of BP response. Results were compared to iPWV as reference and were then validated in an external patient cohort. Eighty patients underwent stiffness assessment before RDN. After 3 months, systolic 24h and daytime BP were reduced by 13.6±9.8 mmHg and 14.7±10.6 mmHg in patients with low iPWV, versus 6.2±13.3 mmHg and 6.3±12.8 mmHg in those with high iPWV (p<0.001 for both). Upon regression analysis, logarithmic ascending aortic distensibility and systolic baseline BP independently predicted BP change at follow-up. Both were confirmed in the validation cohort. iPWV is an independent predictor for BP response after RDN. In addition, BP change prediction following RDN using non-invasive measures is feasible. This could facilitate patient selection for RDN treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recent trials support the efficacy of renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) to reduce blood pressure (BP). Nevertheless, about one third of patients are considered non-responders to RDN. Previous retrospective analyses suggest arterial stiffness could predict BP response to RDN.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
We prospectively assessed the potential of invasive pulse wave velocity (iPWV) to predict BP response to RDN. Additionally, we aimed to establish non-invasive models based on arterial stiffness to predict BP response to RDN.
METHODS
METHODS
iPWV, magnetic resonance imaging-based markers of arterial stiffness and the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity were recorded prior to RDN in patients with treatment resistant hypertension. Changes in daytime BP after 3 months were analysed according to the prespecified iPWV cut-off (14.4 m/s). Regression analyses were used to establish models for non-invasive prediction of BP response. Results were compared to iPWV as reference and were then validated in an external patient cohort.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eighty patients underwent stiffness assessment before RDN. After 3 months, systolic 24h and daytime BP were reduced by 13.6±9.8 mmHg and 14.7±10.6 mmHg in patients with low iPWV, versus 6.2±13.3 mmHg and 6.3±12.8 mmHg in those with high iPWV (p<0.001 for both). Upon regression analysis, logarithmic ascending aortic distensibility and systolic baseline BP independently predicted BP change at follow-up. Both were confirmed in the validation cohort.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
iPWV is an independent predictor for BP response after RDN. In addition, BP change prediction following RDN using non-invasive measures is feasible. This could facilitate patient selection for RDN treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35244604
pii: EIJ-D-21-01036
doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01036
pmc: PMC10241279
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e686-e694Références
Hypertension. 2019 Jul;74(1):117-129
pubmed: 31132954
Lancet. 2017 Nov 11;390(10108):2160-2170
pubmed: 28859944
Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1444-1451
pubmed: 32234534
EuroIntervention. 2016 Aug 05;12(5):e684-92
pubmed: 27497368
Hypertension. 2018 Jun;71(6):e13-e115
pubmed: 29133356
Clin Res Cardiol. 2018 Oct;107(10):945-955
pubmed: 29744617
Hypertension. 2005 Apr;45(4):652-8
pubmed: 15699456
Hypertension. 2015 Apr;65(4):766-74
pubmed: 25691618
J Hypertens. 2018 Jun;36(6):1414-1422
pubmed: 29465712
Circulation. 2019 Jan 29;139(5):590-600
pubmed: 30586691
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 May 17;6(5):
pubmed: 28515119
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2335-2345
pubmed: 29803590
Clin Cardiol. 1990 May;13(5):317-22
pubmed: 2189612
Hypertension. 2004 Feb;43(2):169-75
pubmed: 14610101
Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015 Feb;25(2):107-15
pubmed: 25467242
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Oct 10;6(10):
pubmed: 29018027
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Nov 1;46(9):1753-60
pubmed: 16256881
Eur Heart J. 2017 Jan 7;38(2):93-100
pubmed: 28158510
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2346-2355
pubmed: 29803589
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 4;63(8):834-5
pubmed: 24315901
Eur Heart J. 2012 May;33(9):1058-66
pubmed: 22507981
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 18;73(23):3006-3017
pubmed: 31196459
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Nov 6;60(19):1956-65
pubmed: 23062529
Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 1;39(33):3021-3104
pubmed: 30165516
J Hypertens. 2018 Jul;36(7):1578-1584
pubmed: 29652730
Eur Heart J. 2015 Sep 1;36(33):2219-27
pubmed: 25990344
Eur Heart J. 2006 Nov;27(21):2588-605
pubmed: 17000623