Account for Clinical Heterogeneity in Assessment of Catheter-based Renal Denervation among Resistant Hypertension Patients: Subgroup Meta-analysis / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) is a novel treatment for resistant hypertension (RH). A recent meta-analysis reported that RDN did not significantly reduce blood pressure (BP) based on the pooled effects with mild to severe heterogeneity. The aim of the present study was to identify and reduce clinical sources of heterogeneity and reassess the safety and efficacy of RDN within the identified homogeneous subpopulations.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>This was a meta-analysis of 9 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) among patients with RH up to June 2016. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were extensively conducted by baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) level, antihypertensive medication change rates, and coronary heart disease (CHD).</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In all patients with RH, no statistical differences were found in mortality, severe cardiovascular events rate, and changes in 24-h SBP and office SBP at 6 and 12 months. However, subgroup analyses showed significant differences between the RDN and control groups. In the subpopulations with baseline 24-h SBP ≥155 mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa) and the infrequently changed medication, the use of RDN resulted in a significant reduction in 24-h SBP level at 6 months (P = 0.100 and P= 0.009, respectively). Subgrouping RCTs with a higher prevalent CHD in control showed that the control treatment was significantly better than RDN in office SBP reduction at 6 months (P < 0.001).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>In all patients with RH, the catheter-based RDN is not more effective in lowering ambulatory or office BP than an optimized antihypertensive drug treatment at 6 and 12 months. However, among RH patients with higher baseline SBP, RDN might be more effective in reducing SBP.</p>

Renoprotective Effect of the Combination of Renin-angiotensin System Inhibitor and Calcium Channel Blocker in Patients with Hypertension and Chronic Kidney Disease / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Renin-angiotensin system inhibitor and calcium channel blocker (CCB) are widely used in controlling blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the renoprotective effect of the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and CCB (i.e., ACEI/ARB + CCB) with ACEI/ARB monotherapy in patients with hypertension and CKD.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Publications were identified from PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of BP lowering treatment for patients with hypertension and CKD were considered. The outcomes of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cardiovascular events, BP, urinary protein measures, estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and adverse events were extracted.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Based on seven RCTs with 628 patients, ACEI/ARB + CCB did not show additional benefit for the incidence of ESRD (risk ratio [RR] = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.33) and cardiovascular events (RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.21-1.63) significantly, compared with ACEI/ARB monotherapy. There were no significant differences in change from baseline to the end points in diastolic BP (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.28 mmHg; 95% CI: -3.18 to -0.62), proteinuria (standard mean difference = -0.55; 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.30), GFR (WMD = -0.32 ml/min; 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.89), and occurrence of adverse events (RR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.72-1.53). However, ACEI/ARB + CCB showed a greater reduction in systolic BP (WMD = -4.46 mmHg; 95% CI: -6.95 to -1.97), compared with ACEI/ARB monotherapy.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>ACEI/ARB + CCB had no additional renoprotective benefit beyond than what could be achieved with ACEI/ARB monotherapy.</p>

Urgent need to improve the quality of case report in traditional Chinese medicine: Assessment on reporting quality of 3,417 cases / 中国结合医学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To survey the reporting quality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) case reports published in recent years and understand the common problems. The assessment results would lay the foundation for the development of recommendations for case report in Chinese medicine.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>This survey determined the reporting quality of cases with Chinese herbal decoction, Chinese proprietary medicine, acupuncture, moxibustion and other traditional therapies published in 20 core medical journals of China by searching the China Academic Journals Full-text Database from 2006 to 2010. Fifty survey items in 16 domains were used to determine the reporting quality. One point was assigned to each item (Yes=1 point; No=0 point), and total score was 50 points. The domain of treatment was assessed independently, ranging from 2 to 9 items for different TCM interventions.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The total of 1,858 case reports, covering 3,417 cases were included to analyze from 13 out of 20 core medical journals of China. There were 74.8% of them did not identify the nature of study in title, while 73.9% did not comprise an abstract. Incomplete reporting was found in discussions/ comment, and only 38.9% had made recommendations or take-away messages. Figures and tables were infrequently used. Three cases cited the full names of patients, but without declaring that any consent was obtained. Over 90% reported the symptoms and signs of TCM, and characteristics on tongue and pulse, but less than 50% did mention other medical history and diagnostic rationale. More than 90% treatments of the included cases were herbal decoction, with clear reporting on the ingredients and dosages. However, the reporting rate of the dosages of each ingredient was just 48.4%. Almost none reported the quality control of crude herbs, manufacturers and lot numbers of herbal proprietary medicine. Besides, advices and precautions on diet, emotions and living were rare to be illustrated.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Systematic reporting recommendations are urged to develop for improving the contents and format of case reports in TCM.</p>

Citrate versus unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation in continuous renal replacement therapy / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Unfractionated heparin is the most commonly used anticoagulant in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), but it can increase the risk of bleeding. Citrate is a promising substitute. Our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of citrate versus unfractionated heparin in CRRT.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We searched the MEDLINE, the EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database until up to November 2011 for randomized controlled trials comparing citrate with unfractionated heparin in adult patients with acute kidney injury prescribed CRRT. The primary outcome was mortality and the secondary outcomes included circuit survival, control of uremia, risk of bleeding, transfusion rates, acid-base statuses, and disturbance of sodium and calcium homeostasis.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Four trials met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis found no significant difference between two anticoagulants on mortality. Less bleeding and more hypocalcemic episodes were with citrate. Citrate was superior or comparable to unfractionated heparin in circuit life.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Citrate anticoagulation in CRRT seems to be superior in reducing bleeding risk and with a longer or similar circuit life, although there is more metabolic derangement. Mortality superiority has not been approved.</p>