Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Circulation ; 139(5): 590-600, 2019 01 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30586691

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Both radiofrequency and ultrasound endovascular renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) have proven clinical efficacy for the treatment of hypertension. We performed a head-to-head comparison of these technologies. METHODS: Patients with resistant hypertension were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 manner to receive either treatment with (1) radiofrequency RDN of the main renal arteries; (2) radiofrequency RDN of the main renal arteries, side branches, and accessories; or (3) an endovascular ultrasound-based RDN of the main renal artery. The primary end point was change in systolic daytime ambulatory blood pressure at 3 months. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and June 2018, 120 patients were enrolled (mean age, 64±9 years±SD; mean daytime blood pressure, 153/86±12/13 mm Hg). Of these, 39 were randomly assigned to radiofrequency main renal artery ablation, 39 to combined radiofrequency ablation of the main artery and branches, and 42 to ultrasound-based treatment. Baseline daytime blood pressure, clinical characteristics, and treatment were well balanced between the groups. At 3 months, systolic daytime ambulatory blood pressure decreased by 9.5±12.3 mm Hg ( P<0.001) in the whole cohort. Although blood pressure was significantly more reduced in the ultrasound ablation group than in the radiofrequency ablation group of the main renal artery (-13.2±13.7 versus -6.5±10.3 mm Hg; mean difference, -6.7 mm Hg; global P=0.038 by ANOVA, adjusted P=0.043), no significant difference was found between the radiofrequency ablation groups (-8.3±11.7 mm Hg for additional side branch ablation; mean difference, -1.8 mm Hg; adjusted P>0.99). Similarly, the blood pressure reduction was not found to be significantly different between the ultrasound and the side branch ablation groups. Frequencies of blood pressure response ≥5 mm Hg were not significantly different (global P=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resistant hypertension, endovascular ultrasound-based RDN was found to be superior to radiofrequency ablation of the main renal arteries only, whereas a combined approach of radiofrequency ablation of the main arteries, accessories, and side branches was not. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02920034.


Asunto(s)
Presión Sanguínea , Ablación por Catéter , Hipertensión/cirugía , Riñón/irrigación sanguínea , Arteria Renal/inervación , Simpatectomía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ultrasónicos , Anciano , Antihipertensivos/uso terapéutico , Presión Sanguínea/efectos de los fármacos , Ablación por Catéter/efectos adversos , Ablación por Catéter/instrumentación , Resistencia a Medicamentos , Femenino , Humanos , Hipertensión/diagnóstico , Hipertensión/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Método Simple Ciego , Simpatectomía/efectos adversos , Simpatectomía/instrumentación , Simpatectomía/métodos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ultrasónicos/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ultrasónicos/instrumentación
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA