HypertensionMeta-analysis

Effects of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CirculationPublished

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
  • sham-controlled
  • study-level
  • pairwise
  • random-effects

Authors' conclusion

RDN safely reduces ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure versus a sham procedure in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medications.

Study context

Population
Patients with hypertension, off or on antihypertensive treatment
Participants
2,478 patients · 10 RCTs
Comparison
Renal denervation (RDN) vs sham

Pooled result

As reported in the abstract

24-hour and office SBP and DBP reduction, RDN vs sham
RDN vs ShamDifference, mm Hg (95% CI)P value
24-hour SBP reduction
4.4(2.7–6.1)
P < 0.00001
office SBP reduction
6.6(3.6–9.7)
P < 0.0001
24-hour DBP
−2.6(−3.6 to −1.5)
P < 0.00001
office DBP
−3.5(−5.4 to −1.6)
P = 0.0003

Further pooled results

24-hour and office SBP reduction, trials with vs without concomitant antihypertensive medication

No difference (24-hour SBP)
P for interaction, 0.62
No difference (office SBP)
P for interaction, 0.73

Safety

OutcomeOR (95% CI)P value
Vascular complications, renal artery stenosis, hypertensive crisis, all-cause death — RDN vs Sham · vascular complications1.69 (0.57–5.0)P = 0.34
Vascular complications, renal artery stenosis, hypertensive crisis, all-cause death — RDN vs Sham · renal artery stenosis1.50 (0.06–36.97)P = 0.80
Vascular complications, renal artery stenosis, hypertensive crisis, all-cause death — RDN vs Sham · hypertensive crisis0.65 (0.30–1.38)P = 0.26
Vascular complications, renal artery stenosis, hypertensive crisis, all-cause death — RDN vs Sham · all-cause death1.76 (0.34–9.20)P = 0.50

Change in renal function (eGFR)

Comparable between groups
P for interaction, 0.84

Original publication

Effects of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circulation. Published 2 October 2024. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.124.069709

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it