Efficacy of catheter-based renal denervation in the absence of antihypertensive medications (SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED Pivotal): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-based renal denervation has significantly reduced blood pressure in previous studies. Following a positive pilot trial, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED (SPYRAL Pivotal) trial was designed to assess the efficacy of renal denervation in the absence of antihypertensive medications. METHODS: In this international, prospective, single-blinded, sham-controlled trial, done at 44 study sites in Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Japan, the UK, and the USA, hypertensive patients with office systolic blood pressure of 150 mm Hg to less than 180 mm Hg were randomly assigned 1:1 to either a renal denervation or sham procedure. The primary efficacy endpoint was baseline-adjusted change in 24-h systolic blood pressure and the secondary efficacy endpoint was baseline-adjusted change in office systolic blood pressure from baseline to 3 months after the procedure. We used a Bayesian design with an informative prior, so the primary analysis combines evidence from the pilot and Pivotal trials. The primary efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02439749. FINDINGS: From June 25, 2015, to Oct 15, 2019, 331 patients were randomly assigned to either renal denervation (n=166) or a sham procedure (n=165). The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were met, with posterior probability of superiority more than 0·999 for both. The treatment difference between the two groups for 24-h systolic blood pressure was -3·9 mm Hg (Bayesian 95% credible interval -6·2 to -1·6) and for office systolic blood pressure the difference was -6·5 mm Hg (-9·6 to -3·5). No major device-related or procedural-related safety events occurred up to 3 months. INTERPRETATION: SPYRAL Pivotal showed the superiority of catheter-based renal denervation compared with a sham procedure to safely lower blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications. FUNDING: Medtronic.

Effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the presence of antihypertensive drugs: 6-month efficacy and safety results from the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED proof-of-concept randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous catheter-based renal denervation studies have reported variable efficacy results. We aimed to evaluate safety and blood pressure response after renal denervation or sham control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on antihypertensive medications with drug adherence testing. METHODS: In this international, randomised, single-blind, sham-control, proof-of-concept trial, patients with uncontrolled hypertension (aged 20-80 years) were enrolled at 25 centres in the USA, Germany, Japan, UK, Australia, Austria, and Greece. Eligible patients had an office systolic blood pressure of between 150 mm Hg and 180 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher; a 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure of between 140 mm Hg and 170 mm Hg at second screening; and were on one to three antihypertensive drugs with stable doses for at least 6 weeks. Patients underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to undergo renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were masked to randomisation assignments. The primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure change from baseline (measured at screening visit two), based on ambulatory blood pressure measurements assessed at 6 months, as compared between treatment groups. Drug surveillance was used to assess medication adherence. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed through 6 months as per major adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439775, and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2015, and June 14, 2017, 467 patients were screened and enrolled. This analysis presents results for the first 80 patients randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) and sham control (n=42). Office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months in the renal denervation group (mean baseline-adjusted treatment differences in 24 h systolic blood pressure -7·0 mm Hg, 95% CI -12·0 to -2·1; p=0·0059, 24 h diastolic blood pressure -4·3 mm Hg, -7·8 to -0·8; p=0.0174, office systolic blood pressure -6·6 mm Hg, -12·4 to -0·9; p=0·0250, and office diastolic blood pressure -4·2 mm Hg, -7·7 to -0·7; p=0·0190). The change in blood pressure was significantly greater at 6 months in the renal denervation group than the sham-control group for office systolic blood pressure (difference -6·8 mm Hg, 95% CI -12·5 to -1·1; p=0·0205), 24 h systolic blood pressure (difference -7·4 mm Hg, -12·5 to -2·3; p=0·0051), office diastolic blood pressure (difference -3·5 mm Hg, -7·0 to -0·0; p=0·0478), and 24 h diastolic blood pressure (difference -4·1 mm Hg, -7·8 to -0·4; p=0·0292). Evaluation of hourly changes in 24 h systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure showed blood pressure reduction throughout 24 h for the renal denervation group. 3 month blood pressure reductions were not significantly different between groups. Medication adherence was about 60% and varied for individual patients throughout the study. No major adverse events were recorded in either group. INTERPRETATION: Renal denervation in the main renal arteries and branches significantly reduced blood pressure compared with sham control with no major safety events. Incomplete medication adherence was common. FUNDING: Medtronic.

Catheter-based renal denervation in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the absence of antihypertensive medications (SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED): a randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous randomised renal denervation studies did not show consistent efficacy in reducing blood pressure. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications. METHODS: SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED was a multicentre, international, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Patients were enrolled at 21 centres in the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Eligible patients were drug-naive or discontinued their antihypertensive medications. Patients with an office systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150 mm Hg or greater and less than 180 mm Hg, office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90 mm Hg or greater, and a mean 24-h ambulatory SBP of 140 mm Hg or greater and less than 170 mm Hg at second screening underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments. The primary endpoint, change in 24-h blood pressure at 3 months, was compared between groups. Drug surveillance was done to ensure patient compliance with absence of antihypertensive medication. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed at 3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439749. FINDINGS: Between June 25, 2015, and Jan 30, 2017, 353 patients were screened. 80 patients were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) or sham control (n=42) and followed up for 3 months. Office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 3 months in the renal denervation group: 24-h SBP -5·5 mm Hg (95% CI -9·1 to -2·0; p=0·0031), 24-h DBP -4·8 mm Hg (-7·0 to -2·6; p<0·0001), office SBP -10·0 mm Hg (-15·1 to -4·9; p=0·0004), and office DBP -5·3 mm Hg (-7·8 to -2·7; p=0·0002). No significant changes were seen in the sham-control group: 24-h SBP -0·5 mm Hg (95% CI -3·9 to 2·9; p=0·7644), 24-h DBP -0·4 mm Hg (-2·2 to 1·4; p=0·6448), office SBP -2·3 mm Hg (-6·1 to 1·6; p=0·2381), and office DBP -0·3 mm Hg (-2·9 to 2·2; p=0·8052). The mean difference between the groups favoured renal denervation for 3-month change in both office and 24-h blood pressure from baseline: 24-h SBP -5·0 mm Hg (95% CI -9·9 to -0·2; p=0·0414), 24-h DBP -4·4 mm Hg (-7·2 to -1·6; p=0·0024), office SBP -7·7 mm Hg (-14·0 to -1·5; p=0·0155), and office DBP -4·9 mm Hg (-8·5 to -1·4; p=0·0077). Baseline-adjusted analyses showed similar findings. There were no major adverse events in either group. INTERPRETATION: Results from SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED provide biological proof of principle for the blood-pressure-lowering efficacy of renal denervation. FUNDING: Medtronic.

A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Prior unblinded studies have suggested that catheter-based renal-artery denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension. METHODS: We designed a prospective, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Patients with severe resistant hypertension were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo renal denervation or a sham procedure. Before randomization, patients were receiving a stable antihypertensive regimen involving maximally tolerated doses of at least three drugs, including a diuretic. The primary efficacy end point was the change in office systolic blood pressure at 6 months; a secondary efficacy end point was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, end-stage renal disease, embolic events resulting in end-organ damage, renovascular complications, or hypertensive crisis at 1 month or new renal-artery stenosis of more than 70% at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 535 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) change in systolic blood pressure at 6 months was -14.13±23.93 mm Hg in the denervation group as compared with -11.74±25.94 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group (P<0.001 for both comparisons of the change from baseline), for a difference of -2.39 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.89 to 2.12; P=0.26 for superiority with a margin of 5 mm Hg). The change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was -6.75±15.11 mm Hg in the denervation group and -4.79±17.25 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group, for a difference of -1.96 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.97 to 1.06; P=0.98 for superiority with a margin of 2 mm Hg). There were no significant differences in safety between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This blinded trial did not show a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension 6 months after renal-artery denervation as compared with a sham control. (Funded by Medtronic; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01418261.).

Sympathetic Response and Outcomes Following Renal Denervation in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: 12-Month Outcomes From the Symplicity HF Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is associated with chronic sympathetic activation. Renal denervation (RDN) aims to reduce sympathetic activity by ablating the renal sympathetic nerves. We investigated the effect of RDN in patients with chronic HF and concurrent renal dysfunction in a prospective, multicenter, single-arm feasibility study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with chronic systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <40%, New York Heart Association class II-III,) and renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR; assessed with the use of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation] < 75 mL • min-1 • 1.73 m-2) on stable medical therapy were enrolled. Mean age was 65 ± 11 years; 62% had ischemic HF. The average number of ablations per patient was 13 ± 3. No protocol-defined safety events were associated with the procedure. One subject experienced a renal artery occlusion that was possibly related to the denervation procedure. Statistically significant reductions in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP; 1530 ± 1228 vs 1428 ± 1844 ng/mL; P = .006) and 120-minute glucose tolerance test (11.2 ± 5.1 vs 9.9 ± 3.6; P = .026) were seen at 12 months, but there was no significant change in LVEF (28 ± 9% vs 29 ± 11%; P= .536), 6-minute walk test (384 ± 96 vs 391 ± 97 m; P= .584), or eGFR (52.6 ± 15.3 vs 52.3 ± 18.5 mL • min-1 • 1.73 m-2; P= .700). CONCLUSIONS: RDN was associated with reductions in NT-proBNP and 120-minute glucose tolerance test in HF patients 12 months after RDN treatment. There was no deterioration in other indices of cardiac and renal function in this small feasibility study.

The SPYRAL HTN Global Clinical Trial Program: Rationale and design for studies of renal denervation in the absence (SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED) and presence (SPYRAL HTN ON-MED) of antihypertensive medications.

Renal sympathetic activation plays a key role in the pathogenesis of hypertension, as demonstrated by high renal norepinephrine spillover into plasma of patients with essential hypertension. Renal denervation has demonstrated a significant reduction in blood pressure in unblinded studies of hypertensive patients. The SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial, the first prospective, masked, randomized study of renal denervation versus sham control, failed its primary efficacy end point and raised important questions around potentially confounding factors, such as drug changes and adherence, study population, and procedural methods. The SPYRAL HTN Global Clinical Trial Program is designed to address limitations associated with predicate studies and provide insight into the impact of pharmacotherapy on renal denervation efficacy. The 2 initial trials of the program focus on the effect of renal denervation using the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode renal denervation catheter in hypertensive patients in the absence (SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED) and presence (SPYRAL HTN ON-MED) of antihypertensive medications. The SPYRAL HTN ON-MED study requires patients to be treated with a consistent triple therapy antihypertensive regimen, whereas the SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED study includes a 3- to 4-week drug washout period followed by a 3-month efficacy and safety end point in the absence of antihypertensive medications. The studies will randomize patients with combined systolic-diastolic hypertension to renal denervation or sham procedure. Both studies allow renal denervation treatments in renal artery branches and accessories. These studies will inform the design of the second pivotal phase of the program, which will more definitively analyze the antihypertensive effect of renal denervation.

Patient Preferences for Pharmaceutical and Device-Based Treatments for Uncontrolled Hypertension: Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiment is a survey method used to understand how individuals make decisions and to quantify the relative importance of features. Using discrete choice experiment methods, we quantified patient benefit-risk preferences for hypertension treatments, including pharmaceutical and interventional treatments, like renal denervation. METHODS: Respondents from the United States with physician-confirmed uncontrolled hypertension selected between treatments involving a procedure or pills, using a structured survey. Treatment features included interventional, noninterventional, or no hypertension treatment; number of daily blood pressure (BP) pills; expected reduction in office systolic BP; duration of effect; and risks of drug side effects, access site pain, or vascular injury. The results of a random-parameters logit model were used to estimate the importance of each treatment attribute. RESULTS: Among 400 patients completing the survey between 2020 and 2021, demographics included: 52% women, mean age 59.2±13.0 years, systolic BP 155.1±12.3 mm Hg, and 1.8±0.9 prescribed antihypertensive medications. Reduction in office systolic BP was the most important treatment attribute. The remaining attributes, in decreasing order, were duration of effect, whether treatment was interventional, number of daily pills, risk of vascular injury, and risk of drug side effects. Risk of access site pain did not influence choice. In general, respondents preferred noninterventional over interventional treatments, yet only a 2.3 mm Hg reduction in office systolic BP was required to offset this preference. Small reductions in office systolic BP would offset risks of vascular injury or drug side effects. At least a 20% risk of vascular injury or drug side effects would be tolerated in exchange for improved BP. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in systolic BP was identified as the most important driver of patient treatment preference, while treatment-related risks had less influence. The results indicate that respondents would accept interventional treatments in exchange for modest reductions in systolic BP compared with those observed in renal denervation trials.

Five-year follow-up of the Sirolimus-Eluting Stents vs Vascular Brachytherapy for Bare Metal In-Stent Restenosis (SISR) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical safety and efficacy outcomes of patients treated for in-stent restenosis of bare-metal stents (BMSs). BACKGROUND: The SISR trial is a prospective, randomized trial that compared the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) vs vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for the treatment of BMS in-stent restenosis. METHODS: A total of 384 patients with BMS in-stent restenosis were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 259) or VBT (n = 125) and were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: At 5 years, the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) had narrowed and were nonsignificant between the SES and VBT groups, with TLR rates of 24.7% and 31.2% (95% CI -16.3% to 2.8%, P = .179) respectively. Target vessel failure was 33.6% vs 36.8% (95% CI -13.5% to 6.7% P = .568) for SES compared with VBT. The rate of major adverse cardiac event at 5 years was 34.0% vs 36.8% (95% CI -13.1% to7.1%, P = .648) for the SES compared with VBT. There were no differences between SES and VBT in terms of survival free from TLR (72.9% vs 66.4%, log-rank P = .08) or from target vessel failure (64.4% vs 61.3%, log-rank P = .349). There were no significant differences in the rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis (5.9% vs 2.5%, 95% CI -7.9% to 1.3%, P = .182) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: At a 5-year follow-up, no differences in safety or efficacy outcomes were observed for treatment of BMS restenosis with SES vs VBT. There were no significant differences in survival free from TLR, target vessel revascularization, or major adverse cardiac events between the 2 groups at 5 years. Sirolimus-eluting stent is a viable treatment option compared with VBT for BMS restenosis.

Frequency and impact of bleeding in elective coronary stent clinical trials--utility of three commonly used definitions.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding events are common after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and have been shown to increase mortality in studies of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and anti-thrombotic therapy. Despite this evidence, bleeding has not been included as a traditional major endpoint in clinical trials of low-risk populations enrolled in PCI clinical trials. Thus, the impact of specific bleeding definitions has not been evaluated fully among these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using patient-level pooled data from sirolimus and zotarolimus drug-eluting stent clinical trials, we identified bleeding events using three common definitions of bleeding, ACUITY, TIMI, and GUSTO, and assessed the impact on mortality and MI at 12 months after PCI. The GUSTO, ACUITY, and TIMI classifications identified bleeding rates of 2.3%, 1.9%, and 2.1%, respectively. The GUSTO criteria classified all 118 suspected bleeding events. There were 22 (18.6%) and 8 (6.8%) suspected bleeding events that did not meet ACUITY and TIMI criteria, respectively. The combined endpoint of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 12 months was significantly higher for patients with a bleeding event compared with those who did not bleed [hazard ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.06-3.60)]. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial variability in the utility and inclusiveness of three widely used bleeding definitions in identifying clinically significant bleeding events in clinical trials of low risk patients undergoing PCI with DES. Patients with bleeding after elective PCI have an increased one-year risk of death or MI compared to those patients who do not bleed.

Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that, in a randomized trial, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid artery disease at 30 days and at 1 year. We now report the 3-year results. METHODS: The trial evaluated carotid artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device as compared with endarterectomy in 334 patients at increased risk for complications from endarterectomy who had either a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50% of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80%. The prespecified major secondary end point at 3 years was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the procedure or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1080 days (3 years). RESULTS: At 3 years, data were available for 260 patients (77.8%), including 85.6% of patients in the stenting group and 70.1% of those in the endarterectomy group. The prespecified major secondary end point occurred in 41 patients in the stenting group (cumulative incidence, 24.6%; Kaplan-Meier estimate, 26.2%) and 45 patients in the endarterectomy group (cumulative incidence, 26.9%; Kaplan-Meier estimate, 30.3%) (absolute difference in cumulative incidence for the stenting group, -2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -11.8 to 7.0). There were 15 strokes in each of the two groups, of which 11 in the stenting group and 9 in the endarterectomy group were ipsilateral. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis and increased surgical risk, no significant difference could be shown in long-term outcomes between patients who underwent carotid artery stenting with an emboli-protection device and those who underwent endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00231270 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Imaging strategies for safety surveillance after renal artery denervation.

Renal denervation has emerged as a safe and effective therapy to lower blood pressure in hypertensive patients. In addition to the main renal arteries, branch vessels are also denervated in more contemporary studies. Accurate and reliable imaging in renal denervation patients is critical for long-term safety surveillance due to the small risk of renal artery stenosis that may occur after the procedure. This review summarizes three common non-invasive imaging modalities: Doppler ultrasound (DUS), computed tomography angiography (CTA), and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). DUS is the most widely used owing to cost considerations, ease of use, and the fact that it is less invasive, avoids ionizing radiation exposure, and requires no contrast media use. Renal angiography is used to determine if renal artery stenosis is present when non-invasive imaging suggests renal artery stenosis. We compiled data from prior renal denervation studies as well as the more recent SPYRAL-HTN OFF MED Study and show that DUS demonstrates both high sensitivity and specificity for detecting renal stenosis de novo and in longitudinal assessment of renal artery patency after interventions. In the context of clinical trials DUS has been shown, together with the use of the baseline angiogram, to be effective in identifying stenosis in branch and accessory arteries and merits consideration as the main screening imaging modality to detect clinically significant renal artery stenosis after renal denervation and this is consistent with guidelines from the recent European Consensus Statement on Renal Denervation.

Prioritised endpoints for device-based hypertension trials: the win ratio methodology.

AIMS: Multiple endpoints with varying clinical relevance are available to establish the efficacy of device-based treatments. Given the variance among blood pressure measures and medication changes in hypertension trials, we performed a win ratio analysis of outcomes in a sham-controlled, randomised trial of renal denervation (RDN) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite commonly prescribed antihypertensive medications. We propose a novel prioritised endpoint framework for determining the treatment benefit of RDN compared with sham control. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED pilot study data using a prioritised hierarchical endpoint comprised of 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP), office SBP, and medication burden. A generalised pairwise comparisons methodology (win ratio) was extended to examine this endpoint. Clinically relevant thresholds of 5 and 10 mmHg were used for comparisons of ambulatory and office SBP, respectively, and therefore to define treatment "winners" and "losers". For a total number of 1,596 unmatched pairs, the RDN subject was the winner in 1,050 pairs, the RDN subject was the loser in 378 pairs, and 168 pairs were tied. The win ratio in favour of RDN was 2.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.58 to 5.48; p<0.001) and corresponding net benefit statistic was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.20 to 0.63). Sensitivity analyses performed with differing blood pressure thresholds and according to drug adherence testing demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: The win ratio method addresses prior limitations by enabling inclusion of more patient-oriented results while prioritising those endpoints considered most clinically important. Applying these methods to the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED pilot study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02439775), RDN was determined to be superior regarding a hierarchical endpoint and a "winner" compared with sham control patients.

Effect of renal denervation in attenuating the stress of morning surge in blood pressure: post-hoc analysis from the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) reduces blood pressure (BP) throughout the 24-h period, as reported in several randomized sham-controlled trials. Reduction of BP in the early morning hours is especially important due to increased cardiovascular risks during that time. OBJECTIVE: In this report, we examine the impact of RDN on systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the critical morning surge period in a post-hoc analysis of patients in the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ambulatory BP measurements were collected at baseline and 6 months for treatment and control patient groups over 24-h periods. Average morning BP surge is the difference between average morning BP and average nighttime BP, and the morning surge slope reflects the rate of change of BP from nighttime to morning. Mean morning DBP surge slopes were significantly lower for RDN vs. control groups at 6 months (1.1 vs. 3.6 mmHg/h; p = 0.029). In the RDN group, morning DBP surge slopes were significantly lower at 6 months compared to baseline (1.1 vs. 4.1 mmHg/h; p = 0.006). Similar patterns were observed for mean morning SBP surge slope but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: This decrease in the morning DBP surge slope, an index of the sympathetically-mediated morning BP surge, thus indicates a drop in late morning BP relative to early morning/nocturnal BP in the RDN group. Thus, RDN appears effective in attenuating the slope of morning surge in DBP that might indicate possible benefits in a high-risk hypertensive population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02439775), registered May 12, 2015.

Changes in Plasma Renin Activity After Renal Artery Sympathetic Denervation.

BACKGROUND: The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system plays a key role in blood pressure (BP) regulation and is the target of several antihypertensive medications. Renal denervation (RDN) is thought to interrupt the sympathetic-mediated neurohormonal pathway as part of its mechanism of action to reduce BP. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate plasma renin activity (PRA) and aldosterone before and after RDN and to assess whether these baseline neuroendocrine markers predict response to RDN. METHODS: Analyses were conducted in patients with confirmed absence of antihypertensive medication. Aldosterone and PRA levels were compared at baseline and 3 months post-procedure for RDN and sham control groups. Patients in the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED Pivotal trial were separated into 2 groups, those with baseline PRA ≥0.65 ng/ml/h (n = 110) versus <0.65 ng/ml/h (n = 116). Follow-up treatment differences between RDN and sham control groups were adjusted for baseline values using multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: Baseline PRA was similar between RDN and control groups (1.0 ± 1.1 ng/ml/h vs. 1.1 ± 1.1 ng/ml/h; p = 0.37). Change in PRA at 3 months from baseline was significantly greater for RDN compared with control subjects (-0.2 ± 1.0 ng/ml/h; p = 0.019 vs. 0.1 ± 0.9 ng/ml/h; p = 0.14), p = 0.001 for RDN versus control subjects, and similar differences were seen for aldosterone: RDN compared with control subjects (-1.2 ± 6.4 ng/dl; p = 0.04 vs. 0.4 ± 5.4 ng/dl; p = 0.40), p = 0.011. Treatment differences at 3 months in 24-h and office systolic blood pressure (SBP) for RDN versus control patients were significantly greater for patients with baseline PRA ≥0.65 ng/ml/h versus <0.65 ng/ml/h, despite similar baseline BP. Differences in office SBP changes according to baseline PRA were also observed earlier at 2 weeks post-RDN. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma renin activity and aldosterone levels for RDN patients were significantly reduced at 3 months when compared with baseline as well as when compared with sham control. Higher baseline PRA levels were associated with a significantly greater reduction in office and 24-h SBP. (SPYRAL PIVOTAL - SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED Study; NCT02439749).

Renal Denervation in High-Risk Patients With Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) is under investigation for treatment of uncontrolled hypertension and might represent an attractive treatment for patients with high cardiovascular (CV) risk. It is important to determine whether baseline CV risk affects the efficacy of RDN. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess blood pressure (BP) reduction and event rates after RDN in patients with various comorbidities, testing the hypothesis that RDN is effective and durable in these high-risk populations. METHODS: BP reduction and adverse events over 3 years were evaluated for several high-risk subgroups in the GSR (Global proSpective registrY for syMPathetic renaL denervatIon in seleCted IndicatIons Through 3 Years Registry), an international registry of RDN in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (n = 2,652). Comparisons were made for patients age ≥65 years versus age <65 years, with versus without isolated systolic hypertension, with versus without atrial fibrillation, and with versus without diabetes mellitus. Baseline cardiovascular risk was estimated using the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) atherosclerosis cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score. RESULTS: Reduction in 24-h systolic BP at 3 years was -8.9 ± 20.1 mm Hg for the overall cohort, and for high-risk subgroups, BP reduction was -10.4 ± 21.0 mm Hg for resistant hypertension, -8.7 ± 17.4 mm Hg in patients age ≥65 years, -10.2 ± 17.9 mm Hg in patients with diabetes, -8.6 ± 18.7 mm Hg in isolated systolic hypertension, -10.1 ± 20.3 mm Hg in chronic kidney disease, and -10.0 ± 19.1 mm Hg in atrial fibrillation (p < 0.0001 compared with baseline for all). BP reduction in patients with measurements at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months showed similar reductions in office and 24-h BP for patients with varying baseline ASCVD risk scores, which was sustained to 3 years. Adverse event rates at 3 years were higher for patients with higher baseline CV risk. CONCLUSIONS: BP reduction after RDN was similar for patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across the range of ASCVD risk scores. The impact of baseline risk on clinical event reduction by RDN-induced BP changes could be evaluated in further studies. (Global proSpective registrY for syMPathetic renaL denervatIon in seleCted IndicatIons Through 3 Years Registry; NCT01534299).

Impact of Stroke Volume Index and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction on Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of stroke volume index (SVI) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on prognosis in patients with severe aortic stenosis, comparing those undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and those with surgical AVR (SAVR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 742 patients from the CoreValve US Pivotal High-Risk Trial randomized to TAVR (n=389) or SAVR (n=353) from February 2011 to September 2012 were stratified by an SVI of 35 mL/m2 and LVEF of 50% for comparing all-cause mortality at 1 year. RESULTS: The prevalence of an SVI of less than 35 mL/m2 in patients who underwent TAVR and SAVR was 35.8% (125 of 349) and 31.3% (96 of 307), respectively; LVEF of less than 50% was present in 18.1% (63 of 348) and 19.6% (60 of 306), respectively. Among patients with an SVI of less than 35 mL/m2, 1-year mortality was similar between patients with TAVR and SAVR (16.3% vs 22.2%; P=.25). However, in those with an SVI of 35 mL/m2 or greater, 1-year mortality was lower in those with TAVR than SAVR (10.3% vs 17.3%; P=.03). In patients with an LVEF of less than 50%, mortality was not affected by AVR approach (P>.05). In patients with an LVEF of 50% or higher, TAVR was associated with lower mortality than SAVR when SVI was preserved (9.8% vs 18.6%; P=.01). Mortality was not affected by SVI within the same AVR approach when LVEF was 50% or higher. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe aortic stenosis at high risk, there is a significant interaction between AVR approach and the status of SVI and LVEF. When LVEF or SVI was reduced, prognosis was similar regardless of AVR approach. In those with preserved LVEF or SVI, TAVR was associated with a better prognosis than SAVR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

PROOF trial: protection from pulmonary embolism with the OptEase filter.

PURPOSE: A postmarketing surveillance registry was conducted to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the OptEase vena cava filter when used as a permanent filter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a nonrandomized, multicenter prospective trial with all patients receiving the OptEase vena cava filter for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). A total of 11 clinical sites in the United States enrolled patients. A 1-month postimplantation follow-up examination was performed to determine potential filter migration and the presence of symptomatic thrombosis of the inferior vena cava (IVC) or lower extremities. At 6-month postimplantation follow-up, patients were again assessed for the safety and stability of the filter and any clinical evidence of symptomatic thrombosis. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were enrolled in this study. Fifty-five patients (36.6%) were unable to complete all of the necessary follow-up at 6 months. At 1 month, filter migration and filter-related symptomatic deep vein thrombosis was observed in one patient each (0.9% and 0.8%, respectively). At 6 months, no new cases of filter migration or filter-related symptomatic thrombosis were observed. Filter tilting (> or = 15 degrees off the IVC axis) was observed in one patient at baseline (0.7%), four patients at 1-month follow-up (3.6%), and three patients (11.4%) at 6-month follow-up. Incidental findings on follow-up radiographs included filter fracture in two patients (1.8%) at 1 month and in one additional patient (4.3%) at 6 months. There were no clinical sequelae associated with the filter fracture. CONCLUSIONS: The co-primary endpoints of filter migration and symptomatic thrombus formation at 1 month had an observed frequency of 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. These co-primary endpoints were stable and unchanged at 6 months.

Safety and efficacy of the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions: the SIRIUS 2.25 trial.

Smaller reference vessel diameter is a recognized determinant of in-stent restenosis. The SIRIUS 2.25 trial was a prospective, nonrandomized study including 100 patients (mean age 63.4 years; 64% men, 40% with diabetes mellitus) assessing the safety and efficacy of the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent in patients with de novo native coronary lesions. Using propensity score matching for gender, diabetes mellitus, left anterior descending artery target vessel, lesion length, and reference vessel diameter, the outcomes were compared with historical control groups (angioplasty and Palmaz-Schatz stent arms from the STRESS/BENESTENT I/II trials and the Bx Velocity bare metal stent arm from the RAVEL and SIRIUS trials having a reference vessel diameter <3 mm). Use of the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent was associated with a high rate of procedural success (97%) and a low rate of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (2%). The primary end point, 6-month in-lesion binary angiographic restenosis, occurred less frequently in patients treated with the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent than in each of 3 historical controls (16.9% vs 30.6%, p = 0.12; 36.5%, p <0.001; 45.9%, p <0.001, respectively). This translated into lower rates of 6-month target lesion revascularization in the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent group (4.0% vs 15.0% in each of 3 control groups, p = 0.01 to <0.001). By multivariate analysis, in-lesion binary restenosis was predicted by multiple implanted stents (odds ratio 10.4, p = 0.002). Four of 13 patients who developed restenosis (30.8%) had a diffuse pattern of restenosis. In the long lesion tertile (mean lesion length 19.5 mm), the in-lesion binary restenosis rate was 27.6%. In conclusion, use of the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent was safe and provided favorable 6-month clinical outcomes. Use of multiple stents (in longer lesions) was an independent predictor of in-lesion restenosis.

Sirolimus-eluting stents vs vascular brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis within bare-metal stents: the SISR randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Although vascular brachytherapy is the only approved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are now being used. Data on the relative merits of each are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of patients with restenosis within a bare-metal stent. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of 384 patients with in-stent restenosis who were enrolled between February 2003 and July 2004 at 26 academic and community medical centers. Data presented represent all follow-up as of June 30, 2005. INTERVENTIONS: Vascular brachytherapy (n = 125) or the sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 259). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months postprocedure. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were well matched. Lesion length was similar between vascular brachytherapy and sirolimus-eluting stent patients (mean [SD], 16.76 [8.55] mm vs 17.22 [7.97] mm, respectively; P = .61). Procedural success was 99.2% (124/125) in the vascular brachytherapy group and 97.3% (250/257) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P = .28). The rate of target vessel failure was 21.6% (27/125) with vascular brachytherapy and 12.4% (32/259) with the sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.8; P = .02). Target lesion revascularization was required in 19.2% (24/125) of the vascular brachytherapy group and 8.5% (22/259) of the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3-3.9]; P = .004). At follow-up angiography, the rate of binary angiographic restenosis for the analysis segment was 29.5% (31/105) for the vascular brachytherapy group and 19.8% (45/227) for the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]; P = .07). Compared with the vascular brachytherapy group, minimal lumen diameter was larger in the sirolimus-eluting stent group at 6-month follow-up (mean [SD], 1.52 [0.63] mm vs 1.80 [0.63] mm; P<.001), reflecting greater net lumen gain in the analysis segment (0.68 [0.60] vs 1.0 [0.61] mm; P<.001) due to stenting and no edge restenosis. CONCLUSION: Sirolimus-eluting stents result in superior clinical and angiographic outcomes compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of restenosis within a bare-metal stent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00231257.