Catheter-based renal artery denervation: facts and expectations.

Catheter-based renal artery denervation (RAD) is entering a new era. After the disappointing results of SYMPLICITY-HTN 3 trial in year 2014, several technical and methodological advancements led to execution of important SHAM-controlled randomized trials with promising results. Now, the 2023 ESH Guidelines give RAD a class of recommendation II with a Level of Evidence B. Currently, catheter-based RAD has two main areas of application: (a) Hypertensive patients who are still untreated, in whom RAD is a sort of a first-line treatment; (b) Difficult-to-control or true resistant hypertensive patients. Notably, randomized SHAM-controlled trials met their primary end-point in both these conditions. So far, we do not dispose of established predictors of the antihypertensive response to RAD. Some data suggest that younger patients with systo-diastolic hypertension, absence of diffuse atherosclerosis and evidence of sympathetic nervous system overactivity experience a better BP response to the procedure. We reviewed the available data on catheter-based RAD and included an updated meta-analysis of the results of the available SHAM-controlled trials. Overall, the reduction in 24-h systolic blood pressure (BP) after RAD exceeded that after SHAM by 4.58 mmHg (95% CI 3.07-6.10) in untreated patients, and by 3.82 mmHg (95% CI 2.46-5.18) in treated patients, without significant heterogeneity across trials, patient phenotype (untreated versus treated patients) and technique (radiofrequency versus ultrasound). There were no important safety signals related to the procedure. Notably, some data suggest that RAD could be an effective additional approach in patients with atrial fibrillation and other conditions characterized by sympathetic nervous system overactivity.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors of this study has financial or other reasons that could lead to a conflict of interest.