Features of The Dynamics of Profibrotic Markers and Regression of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy After Renal Denervation in Patients With Resistant Hypertension and Stenosing Atherosclerosis of the Coronary Arteries.

AIM: To compare the changes in serum concentrations of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and their tissue inhibitor (TIMP) to the dynamics of blood pressure (BP) and parameters of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) 6 months after renal denervation (RD) in patients with resistant arterial hypertension (RAH) and complicated coronary atherosclerosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 22 RAH patients with complicated coronary atherosclerosis (revascularization and/or history of myocardial infarction (MI)), 24-hour BP monitoring, echocardiography, and measurement of blood MMPs and TIMP were performed at baseline and six months after RD. The comparison group consisted of 48 RAH patients without a history of coronary revascularization or MI. RESULTS: In 6 months after RD, BP was decreased comparably in both groups. In the group of complicated atherosclerosis, there were no significant changes in profibrotic markers or LVH parameters. Thus, at baseline and after 6 months, the values of the studied indicators were the following: left ventricular myocardial mass (LVMM) 233.1±48.1 and 243.0±52.0 g, LVMM index 60.6±14.5 and 62.8±10 .9 g/m2.7, proMMP-1 4.9 [2.1; 7.7] and 3.6 [2.0; 9.4]  ng/ml, MMP-2 290.4 [233.1; 352.5] and 352.2 [277.4; 402.9] ng/ml, MMP-9 220.6 [126.9; 476.7] and 263.5 [82.9; 726.2] ng/ml, TIMP-1 395.7 [124.7; 591.4] and 424.2 [118.2; 572.0] ng/ml, respectively. In the comparison group, on the contrary, there was a significant decrease in LVMM from 273.6±83.3 g to 254.1±70.4 g, LVMM index from 67.1±12.3 to 64.0±14.4 g/m2.7, proMMP-1 from 7.2 [3.6; 11.7] to 5.9 [3.5; 10.9] ng/ml, MMP-2 from 328.9 [257.1; 378.1] to 272.8 [230.2; 343.2] ng/ml, MMP-9 from 277.9 [137.0; 524.0] to 85.5 [34.2; 225.9] ng/ml, and the MMP-9/TIMP-1 ratio from 0.80 [0.31; 1.30] to 0.24 [0.07; 0.76]. The BP dynamics in this group was inversely correlated with MMP-2 at 6 months (r=-0.38), and the MMP-9/TIMP-1 ratio was correlated with LVMM and the LVMM index at baseline (r=0.39 and r=0.39) and at 6 months (r=0.37 and r=0.32). The change in TIMP-1 from 543.9 [277.5; 674.1] to 469.8 [289.7; 643.6] ng/ml was not significant (p=0.060). CONCLUSION: In RAH patients with complicated coronary atherosclerosis, the dynamics of profibrotic biomarkers and LVH parameters after RD was absent despite the pronounced antihypertensive effect, probably due to the low reversibility of cardiovascular remodeling processes or more complex regulatory mechanisms of the MMP system.

[Refractory and resistant hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: differences in metabolic profile and endothelial function].

AIM: To determine the prevalence of refractory hypertension (RfH) in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), as well as to evaluate whether diabetic patients with RfH significant differ from those with uncontrolled resistant hypertension (RH) in clinical phenotype, metabolic profile and endothelial function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 193 patients with RH: RH 74 patients with diabetes and 119 patients without DM. Uncontrolled RH and RfH were defined by the presence of uncontrolled blood pressure BP (140 and/or 90 mm Hg) despite the use of 3 but 5 antihypertensive drugs (for RH) and 5 antihypertensive drugs, including a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (for RfH). Clinical examination, lab tests were performed. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and vasoreactivity of middle cerebral artery (MCA) using both breath-holding and hyperventilation test were measured by high-resolution ultrasound. RESULTS: The prevalence of refractory hypertension in patients with and without DM was similar (30% vs 28%, respectively). No differences in BP levels, data of echocardiography and clinical phenotype were found between the diabetic groups, but value of HOMA index, plasma resistin level and postprandial glycaemia were higher in patients with RfH. FMD and MCA reactivity to the breath-holding test were worse in patients with RfH, and they had a more pronounced vasoconstrictor response of MCA to the hyperventilation test compared to patients with RH. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of RfH is the same in patients with and without diabetes. Diabetic patients with refractory hypertension have a more unfavorable metabolic profile and greater impairment of endothelial function than patients with uncontrolled resistant hypertension.

Refractory and Resistant Hypertension in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Different Response to Renal Denervation.

Aim      To compare the antihypertensive effectivity of renal denervation in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and associated refractory arterial hypertension (rfAH) (treated with 5 or more classes of antihypertensive drugs, including a thiazide diuretic and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist) and uncontrolled resistant AH (ucAH) (treated with 3-4 drugs).Material and methods  This interventional study with renal denervation included 18 DM patients with rfAH and 40 DM patients with ucAH; 16 and 36 of them, respectively, completed the study in 6 months. At baseline, patients were sex- and age-matched. Study methods included measurement of office blood pressure (BP; systolic/diastolic BP, SBP/DBP); outpatient BP monitoring; evaluation of kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate by the CKD-EPI formula); diurnal diuresis volume; diurnal urinary excretion of albumin, potassium and sodium; diurnal excretion of metanephrines and normetanephrines; and plasma levels of glucose and glycated hemoglobin, aldosterone, and active renin. Patients were instructed about maintaining compliance with their antihypertensive and hypoglycemic therapy throughout the study.Results At baseline, patients of both groups were comparable by BP and major clinical indexes, except for higher values of nocturnal SBP variability (p<0.05) in patients with rfAH. At 6 months following renal denervation, both groups displayed significant decreases in office and average daily SBP and also in the "load" with increased mean diurnal SBP. However, the decrease in average daily SBP was almost 4 times greater in the rfAH group than in the ucAH group ( -19.9 and -5.1 mm Hg, respectively, р=0.02). Moreover, 81 % of patients in the rfAH group responded to the intervention (average daily SBP decrease ≥10 mm Hg) while the number of responders in the ucAH group was considerably smaller (42 %; p=0.02). In patients with rfAH, renal denervation was associated with a significant decrease in pulse BP and nocturnal SBP variability and with the increase in diurnal diuresis. No other alterations were noted in laboratory test results in either group.Conclusion      DM patients with rfAH may be the best candidates for the procedure of renal denervation.