Endovascular Ultrasound Renal Denervation to Treat Hypertension: The RADIANCE II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Two initial sham-controlled trials demonstrated that ultrasound renal denervation decreases blood pressure (BP) in patients with mild to moderate hypertension and hypertension that is resistant to treatment. Objective: To study the efficacy and safety of ultrasound renal denervation without the confounding influence of antihypertensive medications in patients with hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial with patients and outcome assessors blinded to treatment assignment that was conducted between January 14, 2019, and March 25, 2022, at 37 centers in the US and 24 centers in Europe, with randomization stratified by center. Patients aged 18 years to 75 years with hypertension (seated office systolic BP [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg and diastolic BP [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg despite taking up to 2 antihypertensive medications) were eligible if they had an ambulatory SBP/DBP of 135/85 mm Hg or greater and an SBP/DBP less than 170/105 mm Hg after a 4-week washout of their medications. Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater and with suitable renal artery anatomy were randomized 2:1 to undergo ultrasound renal denervation or a sham procedure. Patients were to abstain from antihypertensive medications until the 2-month follow-up unless prespecified BP criteria were exceeded and were associated with clinical symptoms. Interventions: Ultrasound renal denervation vs a sham procedure. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change in daytime ambulatory SBP at 2 months. The primary safety composite outcome of major adverse events included death, kidney failure, and major embolic, vascular, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and hypertensive events at 30 days and renal artery stenosis greater than 70% detected at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included mean change in 24-hour ambulatory SBP, home SBP, office SBP, and all DBP parameters at 2 months. Results: Among 1038 eligible patients, 150 were randomized to ultrasound renal denervation and 74 to a sham procedure (mean age, 55 years [SD, 9.3 years]; 28.6% female; and 16.1% self-identified as Black or African American). The reduction in daytime ambulatory SBP was greater with ultrasound renal denervation (mean, -7.9 mm Hg [SD, 11.6 mm Hg]) vs the sham procedure (mean, -1.8 mm Hg [SD, 9.5 mm Hg]) (baseline-adjusted between-group difference, -6.3 mm Hg [95% CI, -9.3 to -3.2 mm Hg], P < .001), with a consistent effect of ultrasound renal denervation throughout the 24-hour circadian cycle. Among 7 secondary BP outcomes, 6 were significantly improved with ultrasound renal denervation vs the sham procedure. No major adverse events were reported in either group. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with hypertension, ultrasound renal denervation reduced daytime ambulatory SBP at 2 months in the absence of antihypertensive medications vs a sham procedure without postprocedural major adverse events. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03614260.

Ultrasound renal denervation for hypertension resistant to a triple medication pill (RADIANCE-HTN TRIO): a randomised, multicentre, single-blind, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular renal denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, but its efficacy in patients with true resistant hypertension has not been shown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of endovascular ultrasound renal denervation in patients with hypertension resistant to three or more antihypertensive medications. METHODS: In a randomised, international, multicentre, single-blind, sham-controlled trial done at 28 tertiary centres in the USA and 25 in Europe, we included patients aged 18-75 years with office blood pressure of at least 140/90 mm Hg despite three or more antihypertensive medications including a diuretic. Eligible patients were switched to a once daily, fixed-dose, single-pill combination of a calcium channel blocker, an angiotensin receptor blocker, and a thiazide diuretic. After 4 weeks of standardised therapy, patients with daytime ambulatory blood pressure of at least 135/85 mm Hg were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer (stratified by centres) to ultrasound renal denervation or a sham procedure. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation. Addition of antihypertensive medications was allowed if specified blood pressure thresholds were exceeded. The primary endpoint was the change in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 2 months in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02649426. FINDINGS: Between March 11, 2016, and March 13, 2020, 989 participants were enrolled and 136 were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=69) or a sham procedure (n=67). Full adherence to the combination medications at 2 months among patients with urine samples was similar in both groups (42 [82%] of 51 in the renal denervation group vs 47 [82%] of 57 in the sham procedure group; p=0·99). Renal denervation reduced daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure more than the sham procedure (-8·0 mm Hg [IQR -16·4 to 0·0] vs -3·0 mm Hg [-10·3 to 1·8]; median between-group difference -4·5 mm Hg [95% CI -8·5 to -0·3]; adjusted p=0·022); the median between-group difference was -5·8 mm Hg (95% CI -9·7 to -1·6; adjusted p=0·0051) among patients with complete ambulatory blood pressure data. There were no differences in safety outcomes between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Compared with a sham procedure, ultrasound renal denervation reduced blood pressure at 2 months in patients with hypertension resistant to a standardised triple combination pill. If the blood pressure lowering effect and safety of renal denervation are maintained in the long term, renal denervation might be an alternative to the addition of further antihypertensive medications in patients with resistant hypertension. FUNDING: ReCor Medical.

Should patients with obesity and hypertension be treated differently from those who are not obese?

Obesity and hypertension frequently coexist. Measuring blood pressure (BP) accurately in obese patients is challenging and may require strategies that are less accurate, such as forearm cuffing or use of wrist cuffs. Pathophysiologic mechanisms of hypertension may differ between obese and non-obese individuals, which may result in differing effects of common BP-lowering medications. However, to date, there is insufficient trial data to recommend a different approach to medication selection based on body mass index. Additionally, the goal BP is generally not different between obese and non-obese patients. Weight loss should be emphasized for obese patients with hypertension, and interventions in addition to diet and exercise may include weight loss medications and bariatric surgery. Recognition and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea is also important.

Diagnosis and management of renovascular disease and renovascular hypertension.

Renovascular disease is a common but complex disorder, the most common causes of which are fibromuscular dysplasia and atherosclerosis. Clinically, it can present as asymptomatic renal artery stenosis, renovascular hypertension, or ischemic nephropathy. Assessing the clinical index of suspicion remains essential in determining an appropriate diagnostic strategy. For diagnosis in patients with suspected fibromuscular disease, it may be reasonable to proceed directly to renal angiography; however, for most patients with suspected atherosclerotic disease, there are a number of noninvasive tests available that can aid in decision making. The choice of the most appropriate initial test should be based on patient characteristics, clinical presentation, and local expertise. Treatment options include medical, surgical, or percutaneous approaches. Generally, in patients with fibromuscular disease, percutaneous intervention provides durable improvement or cure of hypertension. In patients with atherosclerotic disease, the data are less consistent, and there does appear to be a group of patients who will respond well to medical management alone. As technology advances, the diagnostic and treatment paradigms will continue to evolve.

Clinical insights into the diagnosis and management of atherosclerotic renal artery disease.

Atherosclerotic renovascular disease (ARVD) is an increasingly common contributor to hypertension and renal failure. However, not all patients with an identified obstructive atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis will have clinical improvement, even after successful percutaneous intervention. As such, there remains extensive controversy regarding optimal diagnostic and treatment strategies. Part of this controversy is the result of a paucity of well-designed prospective, randomized clinical trials, but the complex nature of the disorder and the heterogeneity of patients presenting with possible ARVD make simple diagnostic and treatment paradigms difficult to develop. This narrative review describes the latest observations concerning the prevalence, pathogenesis, natural history, diagnostic studies, and treatment options for suspected ARVD. Hopefully, this knowledge will improve the ability of clinicians to weigh risks and benefits and determine the best strategy in individual patients.

The diagnosis and management of renovascular disease: a primary care perspective. Part II. Issues in management.

Renovascular disease is a complex disorder, most commonly caused by fibromuscular dysplasia and atherosclerotic disease. It usually presents in one of three forms: asymptomatic renal artery stenosis, renovascular hypertension, or ischemic nephropathy. This complexity may make diagnostic and management decisions difficult for the primary care physician. In Part I of this review (presented in the May/June 2003 issue of The JCH), the authors discussed when to consider and how to go about making a diagnosis of renovascular disease. In Part II, the authors review the management of this complex condition. There is a debate concerning the optimal treatment of patients with renovascular disease. Management options include medical, surgical, or percutaneous approaches (angioplasty and stenting). Generally in patients with fibromuscular disease, the results of surgery and percutaneous approaches appear superior. In patients with atherosclerotic disease, the data are less consistent, and there does appear to be a group of patients who will respond well to medical management. A potential management algorithm is presented.

The diagnosis and management of renovascular disease: a primary care perspective. Part I. Making the diagnosis.

Renovascular disease is a complex disorder, the most common causes of which are fibromuscular dysplasia and atherosclerotic disease. It usually presents in one of three forms: asymptomatic renal artery stenosis, renovascular hypertension, or ischemic nephropathy. This complexity often makes diagnostic and management decisions difficult. This review will be presented in two parts. In Part I, the authors will discuss when to consider and how to go about making the diagnosis. In Part II (in a future issue of The JCH), the authors discuss the management of renovascular disease. The clinical index of suspicion remains paramount in setting the diagnostic strategy. Although it is subject to certain limitations, conventional contrast angiography is usually considered the gold standard in confirming the diagnosis. In addition, there are a number of available noninvasive tests that can aid in decision making. These tests can be divided into those that detect the anatomic presence of a stenosis and those that identify the functional consequences of the renal artery obstruction. No one study is appropriate for every patient. A diagnostic algorithm is proposed at the conclusion of this review.