Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of Endovascular Ultrasound Renal Denervation or a Sham Procedure 6 Months After Medication Escalation: The RADIANCE Clinical Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, sham-controlled RADIANCE-HTN (A Study of the Recor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension) SOLO, RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, and RADIANCE II (A Study of the Recor Medical Paradise System in Stage II Hypertension) trials independently met their primary end point of a greater reduction in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) 2 months after ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) in patients with hypertension. To characterize the longer-term effectiveness and safety of uRDN versus sham at 6 months, after the blinded addition of antihypertensive treatments (AHTs), we pooled individual patient data across these 3 similarly designed trials. METHODS: Patients with mild to moderate hypertension who were not on AHT or with hypertension resistant to a standardized combination triple AHT were randomized to uRDN (n=293) versus sham (n=213); they were to remain off of added AHT throughout 2 months of follow-up unless specified blood pressure (BP) criteria were exceeded. In each trial, if monthly home BP was ≥135/85 mm Hg from 2 to 5 months, standardized AHT was sequentially added to target home BP <135/85 mm Hg under blinding to initial treatment assignment. Six-month outcomes included baseline- and AHT-adjusted change in daytime ambulatory, home, and office SBP; change in AHT; and safety. Linear mixed regression models using all BP measurements and change in AHT from baseline through 6 months were used. RESULTS: Patients (70% men) were 54.1±9.3 years of age with a baseline daytime ambulatory/home/office SBP of 150.5±9.8/151.0±12.4/155.5±14.4 mm Hg, respectively. From 2 to 6 months, BP decreased in both groups with AHT titration, but fewer uRDN patients were prescribed AHT (P=0.004), and fewer additional AHT were prescribed to uRDN patients versus sham patients (P=0.001). Whereas the unadjusted between-group difference in daytime ambulatory SBP was similar at 6 months, the baseline and medication-adjusted between-group difference at 6 months was -3.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -5.7, -0.2; P=0.033), in favor of uRDN+AHT. For home and office SBP, the adjusted between-group differences in favor of uRDN+AHT over 6 months were -5.4 mm Hg (-6.8, -4.0; P<0.001) and -5.2 mm Hg (-7.1, -3.3; P<0.001), respectively. There was no heterogeneity between trials. Safety outcomes were few and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient-data analysis of 506 patients included in the RADIANCE trials demonstrates the maintenance of BP-lowering efficacy of uRDN versus sham at 6 months, with fewer added AHTs. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02649426 and NCT03614260.

Effect of Alcohol-Mediated Renal Denervation on Blood Pressure in the Presence of Antihypertensive Medications: Primary Results From the TARGET BP I Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) has demonstrated clinically relevant reductions in blood pressure (BP) among individuals with uncontrolled hypertension despite lifestyle intervention and medications. The safety and effectiveness of alcohol-mediated RDN have not been formally studied in this indication. METHODS: TARGET BP I is a prospective, international, sham-controlled, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded trial investigating the safety and efficacy of alcohol-mediated RDN. Patients with office systolic BP (SBP) ≥150 and ≤180 mm Hg, office diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg, and mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP ≥135 and ≤170 mm Hg despite prescription of 2 to 5 antihypertensive medications were enrolled. The primary end point was the baseline-adjusted change in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP 3 months after the procedure. Secondary end points included mean between-group differences in office and ambulatory BP at additional time points. RESULTS: Among 301 patients randomized 1:1 to RDN or sham control, RDN was associated with a significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory SBP at 3 months (mean±SD, -10.0±14.2 mm Hg versus -6.8±12.1 mm Hg; treatment difference, -3.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -6.3 to 0.0]; P=0.0487). Subgroup analysis of the primary end point revealed no significant interaction across predefined subgroups. At 3 months, the mean change in office SBP was -12.7±18.3 and -9.7±17.3 mm Hg (difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -7.0 to 1.0]; P=0.173) for RDN and sham, respectively. No significant differences in ambulatory or office diastolic BP were observed. Adverse safety events through 6 months were uncommon, with one instance of accessory renal artery dissection in the RDN group (0.7%). No significant between-group differences in medication changes or patient adherence were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol-mediated RDN was associated with a modest but statistically significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory SBP compared with sham control. No significant differences between groups in office BP or 6-month major adverse events were observed. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02910414.

Hypertension management in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities.

Arterial hypertension is a leading cause of death globally. Due to ageing, the rising incidence of obesity, and socioeconomic and environmental changes, its incidence increases worldwide. Hypertension commonly coexists with Type 2 diabetes, obesity, dyslipidaemia, sedentary lifestyle, and smoking leading to risk amplification. Blood pressure lowering by lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive drugs reduce cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend dual- and triple-combination therapies using renin-angiotensin system blockers, calcium channel blockers, and/or a diuretic. Comorbidities often complicate management. New drugs such as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improve CV and renal outcomes. Catheter-based renal denervation could offer an alternative treatment option in comorbid hypertension associated with increased sympathetic nerve activity. This review summarises the latest clinical evidence for managing hypertension with CV comorbidities.

Clinical Trial Design Principles and Outcomes Definitions for Device-Based Therapies for Hypertension: A Consensus Document From the Hypertension Academic Research Consortium.

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world's leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies.

Dual endothelin antagonist aprocitentan for resistant hypertension (PRECISION): a multicentre, blinded, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Resistant hypertension is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. The endothelin pathway has been implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension, but it is currently not targeted therapeutically, thereby leaving this relevant pathophysiological pathway unopposed with currently available drugs. The aim of the study was to assess the blood pressure lowering efficacy of the dual endothelin antagonist aprocitentan in patients with resistant hypertension. METHODS: PRECISION was a multicentre, blinded, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 study, which was done in hospitals or research centres in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia. Patients were eligible for randomisation if their sitting systolic blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or higher despite taking standardised background therapy consisting of three antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic. The study consisted of three sequential parts: part 1 was the 4-week double-blind, randomised, and placebo-controlled part, in which patients received aprocitentan 12·5 mg, aprocitentan 25 mg, or placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; part 2 was a 32-week single (patient)-blind part, in which all patients received aprocitentan 25 mg; and part 3 was a 12-week double-blind, randomised, and placebo-controlled withdrawal part, in which patients were re-randomised to aprocitentan 25 mg or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The primary and key secondary endpoints were changes in unattended office systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 4 and from withdrawal baseline to week 40, respectively. Secondary endpoints included 24-h ambulatory blood pressure changes. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541174. FINDINGS: The PRECISION study was done from June 18, 2018, to April 25, 2022. 1965 individuals were screened and 730 were randomly assigned. Of these 730 patients, 704 (96%) completed part 1 of the study; of these, 613 (87%) completed part 2 and, of these, 577 (94%) completed part 3 of the study. The least square mean (SE) change in office systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks was -15·3 (SE 0·9) mm Hg for aprocitentan 12·5 mg, -15·2 (0·9) mm Hg for aprocitentan 25 mg, and -11·5 (0·9) mm Hg for placebo, for a difference versus placebo of -3·8 (1·3) mm Hg (97·5% CI -6·8 to -0·8, p=0·0042) and -3·7 (1·3) mm Hg (-6·7 to -0·8; p=0·0046), respectively. The respective difference for 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure was -4·2 mm Hg (95% CI -6·2 to -2·1) and -5·9 mm Hg (-7·9 to -3·8). After 4 weeks of withdrawal, office systolic blood pressure significantly increased with placebo versus aprocitentan (5·8 mm Hg, 95% CI 3·7 to 7·9, p<0·0001). The most frequent adverse event was mild-to-moderate oedema or fluid retention, occurring in 9%, 18%, and 2% for patients receiving aprocitentan 12·5 mg, 25 mg, and placebo, during the 4-week double-blind part, respectively. This event led to discontinuation in seven patients treated with aprocitentan. During the trial, a total of 11 treatment-emergent deaths occurred, none of which were regarded by the investigators to be related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: In patients with resistant hypertension, aprocitentan was well tolerated and superior to placebo in lowering blood pressure at week 4 with a sustained effect at week 40. FUNDING: Idorsia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Biotech.

Long-term efficacy and safety of renal denervation in the presence of antihypertensive drugs (SPYRAL HTN-ON MED): a randomised, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal denervation has been shown to lower blood pressure in the presence of antihypertensive medications; however, long-term safety and efficacy data from randomised trials of renal denervation are lacking. In this pre-specified analysis of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED study, we compared changes in blood pressure, antihypertensive drug use, and safety up to 36 months in renal denervation versus a sham control group. METHODS: This randomised, single-blind, sham-controlled trial enrolled patients from 25 clinical centres in the USA, Germany, Japan, the UK, Australia, Austria, and Greece, with uncontrolled hypertension and office systolic blood pressure between 150 mm Hg and 180 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher. Eligible patients had to have 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure between 140 mm Hg and less than 170 mm Hg, while taking one to three antihypertensive drugs with stable doses for at least 6 weeks. Patients underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiofrequency renal denervation or a sham control procedure. Patients and physicians were unmasked after 12-month follow-up and sham control patients could cross over after 12-month follow-up completion. The primary endpoint was the treatment difference in mean 24-h systolic blood pressure at 6 months between the renal denervation group and the sham control group. Statistical analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. Long-term efficacy was assessed using ambulatory and office blood pressure measurements up to 36 months. Drug surveillance was used to assess medication use. Safety events were assessed up to 36 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02439775; prospectively, an additional 260 patients are currently being randomly assigned as part of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED Expansion trial. FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2015, and June 14, 2017, among 467 enrolled patients, 80 patients fulfilled the qualifying criteria and were randomly assigned to undergo renal denervation (n=38) or a sham control procedure (n=42). Mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly reduced from baseline in the renal denervation group, and were significantly lower than the sham control group at 24 and 36 months, despite a similar treatment intensity of antihypertensive drugs. The medication burden at 36 months was 2·13 medications (SD 1·15) in the renal denervation group and 2·55 medications (2·19) in the sham control group (p=0·26). 24 (77%) of 31 patients in the renal denervation group and 25 (93%) of 27 patients in the sham control group adhered to medication at 36 months. At 36 months, the ambulatory systolic blood pressure reduction was -18·7 mm Hg (SD 12·4) for the renal denervation group (n=30) and -8·6 mm Hg (14·6) for the sham control group (n=32; adjusted treatment difference -10·0 mm Hg, 95% CI -16·6 to -3·3; p=0·0039). Treatment differences between the renal denervation group and sham control group at 36 months were -5·9 mm Hg (95% CI -10·1 to -1·8; p=0·0055) for mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure, -11·0 mm Hg (-19·8 to -2·1; p=0·016) for morning systolic blood pressure, and -11·8 mm Hg (-19·0 to -4·7; p=0·0017) for night-time systolic blood pressure. There were no short-term or long-term safety issues associated with renal denervation. INTERPRETATION: Radiofrequency renal denervation compared with sham control produced a clinically meaningful and lasting blood pressure reduction up to 36 months of follow-up, independent of concomitant antihypertensive medications and without major safety events. Renal denervation could provide an adjunctive treatment modality in the management of patients with hypertension. FUNDING: Medtronic.

Durability of the Blood Pressure Effects of Renal Pelvis Denervation in Patients with Hypertension During a 12-Month Observation.

INTRODUCTION: We previously completed a trial of renal pelvic denervation for treating hypertension that reduced blood pressure by the 2-month primary endpoint. However, information on the durability of effectiveness is a critical requirement for device therapy and we now report data up to 12 months. METHODS: This was an open label single-arm feasibility study in patients with increased blood pressure despite taking an average of 2.7 medications. The key endpoint reported here was ambulatory blood pressure at 12 months following renal pelvic denervation. RESULTS: In the 17 patients (mean age 56) studied, there was a reduction from the baseline of 148 + 8.7 mmHg in the primary endpoint of mean daytime systolic blood pressure at 12 months of 19.1 (26.7, 11.6) mmHg, P<0.001, as compared with the 2-month result of 19.4 (24.9, 14.0) mmHg. The 24-hour systolic blood pressure fell by 19.3 (26.7, 11.9), P<0.001, and nighttime systolic fell by 18.7 (27.5, 9.8), P<0.001, mmHg at 12 months. Diastolic pressures also fell significantly from baseline at 12 months. As well, automated office systolic blood pressure was reduced from the baseline of 156.5 + 12.3 by 24.8 (33.2. 16.8) mmHg, P<0.001, at 12 months as compared with 22.4 (31.5, 13.3) at 2-months. . All blood pressure changes at 12 months were not different from those at 2 months, thus confirming the durability of the procedure. There were no serious procedural, clinical or laboratory adverse events related to the intervention. Serum creatinine fell from 1.03 + 0.22 to 0.82 + 0.16 mg/dl and estimated glomerular filtration rate rose from 79.6 + 17.8 to 96.3 + 16.4 ml/min/1.73m2 by 12 months, again sustaining effects seen at 2 months. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that the significant blood pressure-lowering effects of renal pelvis denervation are durable and safe for at least one year and provide the basis for a pivotal randomized blinded trial to further define the safety and effectiveness of this procedure.

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.

Association between exercise frequency with renal and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic and non-diabetic individuals at high cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend physical activity to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events. The association between physical activity and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with and without diabetes is unknown. We assessed the association of self-reported physical activity with renal and CV outcomes in high-risk patients aged ≥ 55 years over a median follow-up of 56 months in post-hoc analysis of a previously randomized trial program. METHODS: Analyses were done with Cox regression analysis, mixed models for repeated measures, ANOVA and χ2-test. 31,312 patients, among them 19,664 with and 11,648 without diabetes were analyzed. RESULTS: Physical activity was inversely associated with renal outcomes (doubling of creatinine, end-stage kidney disease (ESRD)) and CV outcomes (CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization). Moderate activity (at least 2 times/week to every day) was associated with lower risk of renal outcomes and lower incidence of new albuminuria (p < 0.0001 for both) compared to lower exercise levels. Similar results were observed for those with and without diabetes without interaction for renal outcomes (p = 0.097-0.27). Physical activity was associated with reduced eGFR decline with a moderate association between activity and diabetes status (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate physical activity was associated with improved kidney outcomes with a threshold at two sessions per week. The association of physical activity with renal outcomes did not meaningfully differ with or without diabetes but absolute benefit of activity was even greater in people with diabetes. Thus, risks were similar between those with diabetes undertaking high physical activity and those without diabetes but low physical activity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov.uniqueidentifier :NCT00153101.

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.

Impact of Renal Pelvic Denervation on Systemic Hemodynamics and Neurohumoral Changes in a Porcine Model.

INTRODUCTION: The blood pressure (BP) response to arterial renal denervation (RDN) is variable. METHODS: This study examined the effectiveness of renal pelvic denervation (RPD) on BP, heart rate (HR), norepinephrine (NE), and histopathology in 42 swine. NE levels were measured immediately, 7, 14, 30, and 90 days after RPD. Intra-arterial BP and HR were measured throughout RPD and after 14 days in 5 swine. RESULTS: During the procedure, RPD immediately reduced systolic BP (-20.6 ± 18.3 mm Hg), diastolic BP (-6.0 ± 8.3 mm Hg), and HR (-5.4 ± 5.6 bpm), which remained decreased at follow-up. The porcine kidneys had a mean NE reduction of 76% directly post procedure and 60% after 7 days, 64% after 14 days, 57% after 30 days, and 65% after 90 days. Histopathological examination confirmed nerve ablation. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings suggest that the renal pelvis nerve ablation is an encouraging target for RDN. Clinical trials are required to test the feasibility of RPD in human hypertension.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

PURPOSE: Available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports the guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients (n = 5250) were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥ 75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline demographic differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP achieved <140/90 mmHg accompanied a progressive increase in the risk of CV mortality and morbidity as well as of cause-specific events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. A progressive reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced <130/80 mmHg did not have any effect on CV risks. CONCLUSION: In mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the VALUE trial, achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg showed a marked protective effect on overall and all cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes. This was not the case for a more frequent achievement of the more intensive BP target, i.e. <130/80 mmHg.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to all middle-aged and elderly hypertensive study patients with high cardiovascular risk.

PURPOSE: Event-based clinical outcome trials have shown limited evidence to support guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus or with general high cardiovascular (CV) risk. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of CV events in patients who participated in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and compared the hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with all high-risk hypertensive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 5250) were compared with the entire VALUE population with high CV risk (n = 15,245). RESULTS: After adjustments for baseline differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 mmHg, but not to <130/80 mmHg, was accompanied by a progressive increase in the risk of CV morbidity and mortality as well as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure in both diabetes mellitus and in all high-risk patients. Target BP <130/80 mmHg reduced stroke risk in the main population but not in the diabetes mellitus patients. Patients with diabetes mellitus had higher event rates for the primary cardiac endpoint and all-cause mortality driven by a higher rate of heart failure. CONCLUSION: In the high-risk hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg, but not <130/80 mmHg, showed principally the same protective effect on overall and cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and in the general high-risk hypertensive population.

Resting heart rate and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic and non-diabetic individuals at high cardiovascular risk analysis from the ONTARGET/TRANSCEND trials.

AIMS: Resting heart rate (RHR) has been shown to be associated with cardiovascular outcomes in various conditions. It is unknown whether different levels of RHR and different associations with cardiovascular outcomes occur in patients with or without diabetes, because the impact of autonomic neuropathy on vascular vulnerability might be stronger in diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 30 937 patients aged 55 years or older with a history of or at high risk for cardiovascular disease and after myocardial infarction, stroke, or with proven peripheral vascular disease from the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials investigating ramipril, telmisartan, and their combination followed for a median of 56 months. We analysed the association of mean achieved RHR on-treatment with the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, the components of the composite primary outcome, and all-cause death as continuous and categorical variables. Data were analysed by Cox regression analysis, ANOVA, and χ2 test. These trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.number NCT00153101. Patients were recruited from 733 centres in 40 countries between 1 December 2001 and 31 July 2008 (ONTARGET) and 1 November 2001 until 30 May 2004 (TRANSCEND). In total, 19 450 patients without diabetes and 11 487 patients with diabetes were stratified by mean RHR. Patients with diabetes compared to no diabetes had higher RHRs (71.8 ± 9.0 vs. 67.9 ± 8.8, P < 0.0001). In the categories of <60 bpm, 60 ≤ 65 bpm, 65 ≤ 70 bpm, 70 ≤ 75 bpm, 75 ≤ 80 bpm and ≥80 bpm, non-diabetic patients had an increased hazard of the primary outcome with mean RHR of 75 ≤ 80 bpm (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.17 (1.01-1.36)) compared to RHR 60 ≤ 65 bpm. For patients with in-trial RHR ≥80 bpm the hazard ratios were highest (diabetes: 1.96 (1.64-2.34), no diabetes: 1.73 (1.49-2.00), For cardiovascular death hazards were also clearly increased at RHR ≥80 bpm (diabetes [1.99, (1.53-2.58)], no diabetes [1.73 (1.38-2.16)]. Similar results were obtained for hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause death while the effect of RHR on myocardial infarction and stroke was less pronounced. Results were robust after adjusting for various risk indicators including beta-blocker use and atrial fibrillation. No significant association to harm was observed at lower RHR. CONCLUSION: Mean RHR above 75-80 b.p.m. was associated with increased risk for cardiovascular outcomes except for stroke. Since in diabetes, high RHR is associated with higher absolute event numbers and patients have higher RHRs, this association might be of particular clinical importance in diabetes. These data suggest that RHR lowering in patients with RHRs above 75-80 b.p.m. needs to be studied in prospective trials to determine if it will reduce outcomes in diabetic and non-diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov.Unique identifier: NCT00153101.

[São Paulo call to action for the prevention and control of high blood pressure: 2020Llamado a la acción de San Pablo para la prevención y el control de la hipertensión arterial, 2020]. / Chamado à ação de São Paulo para prevenção e controle da hipertensão arterial, 2020.

About 1/4th of adults have high blood pressure which is the single most important risk for death (including heart disease and stroke).There are effective policies that could facilitate people making healthy choices to prevent raised blood pressure, and if fully implemented, could largely prevent hypertension from occurring.Hypertension is easy to screen and treat for BUT only about 50% of adults with hypertension are aware of their condition and only about 1 in 7 is adequately treated.Preventing and controlling high blood pressure is the major mechanism for NCD prevention and control and a model for other NCD risks.Effective lifestyle and drug treatments could prevent and control hypertension in most individuals if systematically applied to the population, simple interventions are feasible in all settings, and can be used to enhance primary care.Urgent sustained action is needed is needed for effective public policies and health system changes to prevent and control hypertension.

Cerca de una cuarta parte de los adultos tienen hipertensión, el principal factor de riesgo de muerte (inclusive la causada por cardiopatía y accidente cerebrovascular).Existen políticas eficaces que podrían ayudar a las personas a elegir opciones saludables para prevenir el aumento de la presión arterial; si se las aplicara plenamente, se podría evitar en gran medida el desarrollo de hipertensión.La hipertensión es fácil de detectar y tratar, PERO solo alrededor de 50% de los adultos que presentan dicha afección son conscientes de su situación y solamente 1 de cada 7 de ellos recibe el tratamiento adecuado.La prevención y el control de la hipertensión es el mecanismo principal para prevenir y controlar las enfermedades no transmisibles y un modelo para evitar otros riesgos de presentar dichas enfermedades.La adopción de un modo de vida saludable y el tratamiento farmacológico efectivo podrían prevenir y controlar la hipertensión en la mayoría de las personas si se implementaran de manera sistemática en la población; en todos los entornos es posible aplicar intervenciones sencillas, que pueden usarse para mejorar la atención primaria.Es urgente adoptar medidas sostenidas para introducir cambios eficaces en las políticas públicas y los sistemas de salud pública con miras a prevenir y controlar la hipertensión.

[São Paulo call to action for the prevention and control of high blood pressure: 2020Chamado à ação de São Paulo para prevenção e controle da hipertensão arterial: 2020]. / Llamado a la acción de San Pablo para la prevención y el control de la hipertensión arterial, 2020.

About 1/4th of adults have high blood pressure which is the single most important risk for death (including heart disease and stroke).There are effective policies that could facilitate people making healthy choices to prevent raised blood pressure, and if fully implemented, could largely prevent hypertension from occurring.Hypertension is easy to screen and treat for BUT only about 50% of adults with hypertension are aware of their condition and only about 1 in 7 is adequately treated.Preventing and controlling high blood pressure is the major mechanism for NCD prevention and control and a model for other NCD risks.Effective lifestyle and drug treatments could prevent and control hypertension in most individuals if systematically applied to the population, simple interventions are feasible in all settings, and can be used to enhance primary care.Urgent sustained action is needed is needed for effective public policies and health system changes to prevent and control hypertension.

Cerca de » dos adultos têm hipertensão arterial, que é o fator de risco isolado mais importante para morte (incluídas as mortes por cardiopatia e acidente vascular cerebral).Existem políticas eficazes que poderiam facilitar escolhas pessoais saudáveis para evitar a elevação da pressão arterial e, se plenamente implementadas, podem prevenir a ocorrência da hipertensão arterial.É fácil rastrear e tratar a hipertensão, MAS somente cerca de 50% dos adultos hipertensos estão cientes de sua condição, e apenas cerca de 1 em cada 7 é tratado adequadamente.A prevenção e controle da hipertensão é o principal mecanismo de prevenção e controle das doenças não transmissíveis e um modelo para outros riscos de doenças não transmissíveis.Tratamentos eficazes com mudanças de estilo de vida e medicamentos poderiam prevenir e controlar a hipertensão arterial na maioria das pessoas se aplicados sistematicamente à população; as intervenções simples são viáveis em todos os ambientes e podem melhorar a atenção primária.É necessária a ação continuada e urgente a fim de obter mudanças efetivas nas políticas públicas e no sistema de saúde para prevenir e controlar a hipertensão arterial.

Six-Month Results of Treatment-Blinded Medication Titration for Hypertension Control After Randomization to Endovascular Ultrasound Renal Denervation or a Sham Procedure in the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO Trial.

BACKGROUND: The multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, sham-controlled RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial (A Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension) demonstrated a 6.3 mm Hg greater reduction in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure (BP) at 2 months by endovascular ultrasound renal denervation (RDN) compared with a sham procedure among patients not treated with antihypertensive medications. We report 6-month results after the addition of a recommended standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment to the randomized endovascular procedure under continued blinding to initial treatment. METHODS: Patients with a daytime ambulatory BP ≥135/85 mm Hg and <170/105 mm Hg after a 4-week discontinuation of up to 2 antihypertensive medications, and a suitable renal artery anatomy, were randomized to RDN (n=74) or sham (n=72). Patients were to remain off antihypertensive medications throughout the first 2 months of follow-up unless safety BP criteria were exceeded. Between 2 and 5 months, if monthly measured home BP was ≥135/85 mm Hg, a standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment was recommended consisting of the sequential addition of amlodipine (5 mg/d), a standard dose of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg/d), followed by the sequential uptitration of hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg/d) and amlodipine (10 mg/d). Outcomes included the 6-month (1) change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP adjusted for medications and baseline systolic BP, (2) medication burden, and (3) safety. RESULTS: A total of 69/74 RDN patients and 71/72 sham patients completed the 6-month ambulatory BP measurement. At 6 months, 65.2% of patients in the RDN group were treated with the standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment versus 84.5% in the sham group (P=0.008), and the average number of antihypertensive medications and defined daily dose were less in the RDN group than in the sham group (0.9±0.9 versus 1.3±0.9, P=0.010 and 1.4±1.5 versus 2.0±1.8, P=0.018; respectively). Despite less intensive standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, RDN reduced daytime ambulatory systolic BP to a greater extent than sham (-18.1±12.2 versus -15.6±13.2 mm Hg, respectively; difference adjusted for baseline BP and number of medications: -4.3 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval, -7.9 to -0.6, P=0.024). There were no major adverse events in either group through 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The BP-lowering effect of endovascular ultrasound RDN was maintained at 6 months with less prescribed antihypertensive medications compared with a sham control. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT02649426.

Cardiovascular outcomes and achieved blood pressure in patients with and without diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

AIMS: Studies have shown a non-linear relationship between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and outcomes, with increased risk observed at both low and high blood pressure (BP) levels. We hypothesized that the BP-risk association is different in individuals with and without diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients with (N = 11 487) or without diabetes (N = 19 450), from 30 937 patients, from 133 centres in 44 countries with a median follow-up of 56 months in the ONTARGET/TRANSCEND studies. Patients had a prior history of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), peripheral artery disease, or were high-risk diabetics. Patients in ONTARGET had been randomized to ramipril 10 mg daily, telmisartan 80 mg daily, or the combination of both. Patients in TRANSCEND were ACE intolerant and randomized to telmisartan 80 mg daily or matching placebo. We analysed the association of mean achieved in-trial SBP and DBP with the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke and hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF), the components of the composite, and all-cause death. Data were analysed by Cox regression and restricted cubic splines, adjusting for risk markers including treatment allocation and accompanying cardiovascular treatments. In patients with diabetes, event rates were higher across the whole spectrum of SBP and DBP compared with those without diabetes (P < 0.0001 for the primary composite outcome, P < 0.01 for all other endpoints). Mean achieved in-trial SBP ≥160 mmHg was associated with increased risk for the primary outcome [diabetes/no diabetes: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.31 (1.93-2.76)/1.66 (1.36-2.02) compared with non-diabetics with SBP 120 to <140 mmHg], with similar findings for all other endpoints in patients with diabetes, and for MI and stroke in patients without diabetes. In-trial SBP <120 mmHg was associated with increased risk for the combined outcome in patients with diabetes [HR 1.53 (1.27-1.85)], and for cardiovascular death and all-cause death in all patients. In-trial DBP ≥90 mmHg was associated with increased risk for the primary outcome [diabetes/no diabetes: HR 2.32 (1.91-2.82)/1.61 (1.35-1.93) compared with non-diabetics with DBP 70 to <80 mmHg], with similar findings for all other endpoints, but not for CHF hospitalizations in patients without diabetes. In-trial DBP <70 mmHg was associated with increased risk for the combined outcome in all patients [diabetes/no diabetes: HR 1.77 (1.51-2.06)/1.30 (1.16-1.46)], and also for all other endpoints except stroke. CONCLUSION: High on treatment BP levels (≥160 or ≥90 mmHg) are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes and death. Also low levels (<120 or <70 mmHg) are associated with increased cardiovascular outcomes (except stroke) and death. Patients with diabetes have consistently higher risks over the whole BP range, indicating that achieving optimal BP goals is most impactful in this group. These data favour guidelines taking lower BP boundaries into consideration, in particular in diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov.Unique identifier: NCT00153101.

May Measurement Month 2018: a pragmatic global screening campaign to raise awareness of blood pressure by the International Society of Hypertension.

AIMS: Raised blood pressure (BP) is the biggest contributor to mortality and disease burden worldwide and fewer than half of those with hypertension are aware of it. May Measurement Month (MMM) is a global campaign set up in 2017, to raise awareness of high BP and as a pragmatic solution to a lack of formal screening worldwide. The 2018 campaign was expanded, aiming to include more participants and countries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-nine countries participated in MMM 2018. Volunteers (≥18 years) were recruited through opportunistic sampling at a variety of screening sites. Each participant had three BP measurements and completed a questionnaire on demographic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Hypertension was defined as a systolic BP ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg, or taking antihypertensive medication. In total, 74.9% of screenees provided three BP readings. Multiple imputation using chained equations was used to impute missing readings. 1 504 963 individuals (mean age 45.3 years; 52.4% female) were screened. After multiple imputation, 502 079 (33.4%) individuals had hypertension, of whom 59.5% were aware of their diagnosis and 55.3% were taking antihypertensive medication. Of those on medication, 60.0% were controlled and of all hypertensives, 33.2% were controlled. We detected 224 285 individuals with untreated hypertension and 111 214 individuals with inadequately treated (systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg) hypertension. CONCLUSION: May Measurement Month expanded significantly compared with 2017, including more participants in more countries. The campaign identified over 335 000 adults with untreated or inadequately treated hypertension. In the absence of systematic screening programmes, MMM was effective at raising awareness at least among these individuals at risk.