Catheter-Based Renal Sympathetic Denervation for Resistant Hypertension Durability of Blood Pressure Reduction Out to 24 Months

Renal sympathetic hyperactivity is seminal in the maintenance and progression of hypertension. Catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation has been shown to significantly reduce blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension. Durability of effect beyond 1 year using this novel technique has never been reported. A cohort of 45 patients with resistant hypertension (systolic BP GT = 160 mm Hg on GT = 3 antihypertension drugs, including a diuretic) has been originally published. Herein, we report longer-term follow-up data on these and a larger group of similar patients subsequently treated with catheter-based renal denervation in a nonrandomized manner. We treated 153 patients with catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation at 19 centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Mean age was 57 +/- 11 years, 39% were women, 31% were diabetic, and 22% had coronary artery disease. Baseline values included mean office BP of 176/98 +/- 17/15 mm Hg, mean of 5 antihypertension medications, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 83 +/- 20 mL/min per 1.73 m(2). The median time from first to last radiofrequency energy ablation was 38 minutes. The procedure was without complication in 97% of patients (149 of 153). The 4 acute procedural complications included 3 groin pseudoaneurysms and 1 renal artery dissection, all managed without further sequelae. Postprocedure office BPs were reduced by 20/10, 24/11, 25/11, 23/11, 26/14, and 32/14 mm Hg at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. In conclusion, in patients with resistant hypertension, catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation results in a substantial reduction in BP sustained out to GT = 2 years of follow-up, without significant adverse events. (Hypertension. 2011;57:911-917.

CT or Invasive Coronary Angiography in Stable Chest Pain.

Background: In the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), computed tomography (CT) is an accurate, noninvasive alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA in the management of CAD to reduce the frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing CT with ICA as initial diagnostic imaging strategies for guiding the treatment of patients with stable chest pain who had an intermediate pretest probability of obstructive CAD and were referred for ICA at one of 26 European centers. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) over 3.5 years. Key secondary outcomes were procedure-related complications and angina pectoris. Results: Among 3561 patients (56.2% of whom were women), follow-up was complete for 3523 (98.9%). Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 38 of 1808 patients (2.1%) in the CT group and in 52 of 1753 (3.0%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 1.07; P = 0.10). Major procedure-related complications occurred in 9 patients (0.5%) in the CT group and in 33 (1.9%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.55). Angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up was reported in 8.8% of the patients in the CT group and in 7.5% of those in the ICA group (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.48). Conclusions: Among patients referred for ICA because of stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was similar in the CT group and the ICA group. The frequency of major procedure-related complications was lower with an initial CT strategy. (Funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program and others; DISCHARGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02400229.)