Prognostic Value of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Refractory Hypertension : A Prospective Study

The objective of this study was to establish whether ambulatory blood pressure offers a better estimate of cardiovascular risk than does its clinical blood pressure counterpart in refractory hypertension. This prospective study assessed the incidence of cardiovascular events over time during an average follow-up of 49 months (range, 6 to 96). Patients were referred to specialized hypertension clinics (86 essential hypertension patients who had diastolic blood pressure >100 mm Hg during antihypertensive treatment that included three or more antihypertensive drugs, one being a diuretic). Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed at the time of entrance. End-organ damage was monitored yearly, and the incidence of cardiovascular events was recorded. Patients were divided into tertiles of average diastolic blood pressure during activity according to the ABPM, with the lowest tertile 97 mm Hg (HT, n=28). While significant differences in systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressures were observed among groups, no differences were observed at either the beginning or at the time of the last evaluation for office blood pressure. During the last evaluation, a progression in the end-organ damage score was observed for the HT group but not for the two other groups. Twenty-one of the patients had a new cardiovascular event; the incidence of events was significantly lower for the LT group (2.2 per 100 patient-years) than it was for the MT group (9.5 per 100 patient-years) or for the HT group (13.6 per 100 patient-years). The probability of event-free survival was also significantly different when comparing the LT group with the other two groups (LT versus MT log-rank, P<.04; LT versus HT log-rank, P<.006). The HT group was an independent risk factor for the incidence of cardiovascular events (relative risk, 6.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.38 to 28.1, P<.02). Higher values of ambulatory blood pressure result in a worse prognosis in patients with refractory hypertension, supporting the recommendation that ABPM is useful in stratifying the cardiovascular risk in patients with refractory hypertension.Redon Mas, Josep, [email protected]

Effects of telmisartan and ramipril on adiponectin and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes

&lt;b&gt;Background:&lt;/b&gt; Adiponectin is secreted by adipose tissue and may play a role in cardiovascular disease. We examined adiponectin levels in patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in the Telmisartan vs. Ramipril in Renal Endothelial Dysfunction (TRENDY) study. &lt;b&gt;Methods&lt;/b&gt; A total of 87 patients were assessed at baseline and following 9 weeks treatment with the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan (final dose, 80 mg; n = 45) or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril (final dose, 10 mg; n = 42). Adiponectin levels were measured in plasma by radioimmunoassay. &lt;b&gt;Results:&lt;/b&gt; Adiponectin levels were inversely correlated with systolic (SBP; r = -0.240, P &#60; 0.05) and diastolic (DBP; r = -0.227, P &#60; 0.05) blood pressure at baseline and following treatment with telmisartan or ramipril (SBP: r = -0.228, P &#60; 0.05; DBP: r = -0.286, P &#60; 0.05). Changes in adiponectin levels were related to changes in SBP (r = -0.357, P &#60; 0.01) and DBP (r = -0.286, P &#60; 0.01). There was a significant increase in adiponectin levels in the telmisartan (0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27 to 1.10) &lt;sup&gt;&#181;&lt;/sup&gt;g/ml, P &#60; 0.01) but not in the ramipril group (0.17 (95% CI, -0.56 to 0.90) &lt;sup&gt;&#181;&lt;/sup&gt;g/ml, P = 0.67). Blood pressure reduction in the telmisartan group (DeltaSBP: -13.5 (95% CI, -17.0 to -10.0) mm Hg; &#916;DBP: -7.6 (95% CI, -9.8 to -5.3) mm Hg, each P &#60; 0.001) was significantly (P less than or equal to 0.01 for SBP and P &#60; 0.01 for DBP) greater than in the ramipril group (&#916;SBP: -6.1 (95% CI, -6.2 to -2.0) mm Hg; &#916;DBP: -2.7 (95% CI, -5.0 to -0.5) mm Hg; P &#60; 0.01 and P &#60; 0.05, respectively). &lt;b&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/b&gt; Adiponectin is correlated with blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes. Whether increased adiponectin contributes to the blood pressure–lowering effect of telmisartan needs further study

RIP2 plays a role in cardiac Ca2+ mishandling prompted by chronic kidney disease

post-print81,7 K

Effect of Finerenone on chronic kidney disease outcomes in type 2 diabetes

Background: Finerenone, a nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, reduced albuminuria in short-term trials involving patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes. However, its long-term effects on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes are unknown. Methods: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 5734 patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes in a 1:1 ratio to receive finerenone or placebo. Eligible patients had a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of 30 to less than 300, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25 to less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, and diabetic retinopathy, or they had a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 300 to 5000 and an eGFR of 25 to less than 75 ml per minute per 1.73 m2. All the patients were treated with renin-angiotensin system blockade that had been adjusted before randomization to the maximum dose on the manufacturer's label that did not cause unacceptable side effects. The primary composite outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was kidney failure, a sustained decrease of at least 40% in the eGFR from baseline, or death from renal causes. The key secondary composite outcome, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results: During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 504 of 2833 patients (17.8%) in the finerenone group and 600 of 2841 patients (21.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.93; P = 0.001). A key secondary outcome event occurred in 367 patients (13.0%) and 420 patients (14.8%) in the respective groups (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03). Overall, the frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. The incidence of hyperkalemia-related discontinuation of the trial regimen was higher with finerenone than with placebo (2.3% and 0.9%, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes, treatment with finerenone resulted in lower risks of CKD progression and cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FIDELIO-DKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02540993.)

Effects of renal denervation on kidney function and long-term outcomes: 3-year follow-up from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry

Aims Several studies and registries have demonstrated sustained reductions in blood pressure (BP) after renal denervation (RDN). The long-term safety and efficacy after RDN in real-world patients with uncontrolled hypertension, however, remains unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of RDN, including its effects on renal function. Methods and results The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is a prospective, open-label registry conducted at 196 active sites worldwide in hypertensive patients receiving RDN treatment. Among 2237 patients enrolled and treated with the SYMPLICITY Flex catheter, 1742 were eligible for follow-up at 3 years. Baseline office and 24-h ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) were 166 ± 25 and 154 ± 18 mmHg, respectively. SBP reduction after RDN was sustained over 3 years, including decreases in both office (−16.5 ± 28.6 mmHg, P < 0.001) and 24-h ambulatory SBP (−8.0 ± 20.0 mmHg; P < 0.001). Twenty-one percent of patients had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Between baseline and 3 years, renal function declined by 7.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 in patients without chronic kidney disease (CKD; eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2; baseline eGFR 87 ± 17 mL/min/1.73 m2) and by 3.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 in patients with CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2; baseline eGFR 47 ± 11 mL/min/1.73 m2). No long-term safety concerns were observed following the RDN procedure. Conclusion Long-term data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry representing the largest available cohort of hypertensive patients receiving RDN in a real-world clinical setting demonstrate both the safety and efficacy of the procedure with significant and sustained office and ambulatory BP reductions out to 3 years

ESC core curriculum for the general cardiologist (2013)

[No abstract available

Finerenone in Predominantly Advanced CKD and Type 2 Diabetes With or Without Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor Therapy

INTRODUCTION: FIDELIO-DKD (FInerenone in reducing kiDnEy faiLure and dIsease prOgression in Diabetic Kidney Disease) investigated the nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) antagonist finerenone in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis explores the impact of use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) on the treatment effect of finerenone. METHODS: Patients (N = 5674) with T2D, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of 30 to 5000 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25 to <75 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) receiving optimized renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade were randomized to finerenone or placebo. Endpoints were change in UACR and a composite kidney outcome (time to kidney failure, sustained decrease in eGFR ≥40% from baseline, or renal death) and key secondary cardiovascular outcomes (time to cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02540993). RESULTS: Of 5674 patients, 259 (4.6%) received an SGLT-2i at baseline. Reduction in UACR with finerenone was found with or without use of SGLT-2i at baseline, with ratio of least-squares means of 0.69 (95% CI = 0.66–0.71) and 0.75 (95% CI -= 0.62–0.90), respectively (P(interaction) = 0.31). Finerenone also significantly reduced the kidney and key secondary cardiovascular outcomes versus placebo; there was no clear difference in the results by SGLT-2i use at baseline (P(interaction) = 0.21 and 0.46, respectively) or at any time during the trial. Safety was balanced with or without SGLT-2i use at baseline, with fewer hyperkalemia events with finerenone in the SGLT-2i group (8.1% vs. 18.7% without). CONCLUSION: UACR improvement was observed with finerenone in patients with CKD and T2D already receiving SGLT-2is at baseline, and benefits on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes appear consistent irrespective of use of SGLT-2i

Proceedings from the 2nd European Clinical Consensus Conference for device-based therapies for hypertension: state of the art and considerations for the future.

The interest in RDN for hypertension has fluctuated recently, with a flurry of initial enthusiasm followed by sudden loss of interest by researchers and device manufacturers, with an almost as sudden resurgence in clinical trials activity and device innovation more recently. There is widespread consensus that this therapeutic strategy can be effective, at least for some of the technologies available. Major uncertainties remain as to the clinical role of RDN, and whether any of the emerging technologies such as AV-anastomosis formation, carotid body ablation, carotid bulb expansion, or baroreflex stimulation will have a future as effective treatment options in patients with hypertension. In our first consensus report in 2015, the European Expert Group pointed to the major unmet need of standardization of measurements, trial design and procedural performance.6 With the large number of different technologies currently in the pipeline, this need has even increased. Only through high-quality, collaborative research and openness to new methods for recruitment, patient selection, and assessment of outcomes will it be possible to establish incontrovertibly whether device therapies for hypertension are effective and what are preferred patient populations. Once the proof of concept is established, further studies with a design relevant to clinical reality will be needed to establish the place of new devices in the treatment armoury. The clinical and research community has a large responsibility to prove or disprove the value of new therapies, in order to ensure that antihypertensive devices provide future patients with the greatest benefit and the smallest risk. copy; The Author 2017