Management of Resistant Hypertension.

Resistant hypertension (RH) is a severe form of hypertension associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Although true RH affects less than 10% of the patients receiving antihypertensive therapy, the absolute number is high and continues to increase. The workup of these patients requires screening for secondary hypertension and pseudoresistance, including poor adherence to prescribed medicines and the white-coat phenomenon. The treatment of RH consists of lifestyle modifications and pharmacological therapies. Lifestyle modifications include dietary adjustments, weight loss, physical activity, and limiting alcohol consumption; pharmacological therapies include diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, beta blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and others. Over the last 15 years, interventional approaches have emerged as adjunct treatment options; we highlight catheter-based renal denervation. This review summarizes the rationales and latest clinical evidence and, based thereon, proposes an updated algorithm for the management of RH.

Effects of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several sham-controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) with mixed outcomes. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of all randomized, sham-controlled trials investigating RDN with first- and second-generation devices in hypertension. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for eligible trials. Outcomes included both efficacy (24-hour and office systolic [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and safety (all-cause death, vascular complication, renal artery stenosis >70%, hypertensive crisis) of RDN. We performed a study-level, pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis of the summary data. RESULTS: Ten trials comprising 2478 patients with hypertension while being either off or on treatment were included. Compared with sham, RDN reduced 24-hour and office systolic blood pressure by 4.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 2.7 to 6.1; P<0.00001) and 6.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.6 to 9.7; P<0.0001), respectively. The 24-hour and office diastolic blood pressure paralleled these findings (-2.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -3.6 to -1.5]; P<0.00001; -3.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.4 to -1.6]; P=0.0003). There was no difference in 24-hour and office systolic blood pressure reduction between trials with and without concomitant antihypertensive medication (P for interaction, 0.62 and 0.73, respectively). There was no relevant difference in vascular complications (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.57 to 5.0]; P=0.34), renal artery stenosis (odds ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.06 to 36.97]; P=0.80), hypertensive crisis (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.38]; P=0.26), and all-cause death (odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.34 to 9.20]; P=0.50) between RDN and sham groups. Change of renal function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate was comparable between groups (P for interaction, 0.84). There was significant heterogeneity between trials. CONCLUSIONS: RDN safely reduces ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure versus a sham procedure in the presence and absence of antihypertensive medication.

Efficacy and Safety of Catheter-Based Radiofrequency Renal Denervation in Chinese Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension: The Randomized, Sham-Controlled, Multi-Center Iberis-HTN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) can lower blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension in both the presence and absence of medication. This is the first sham-controlled trial investigating the safety and efficacy of RDN in China. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, patient- and outcome-assessor-blinded, sham-controlled trial investigated radiofrequency RDN in patients with hypertension on standardized triple antihypertensive therapy. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo RDN using a multi-electrode radiofrequency catheter (Iberis; AngioCare, Shanghai, China) or a sham procedure. The primary efficacy outcome was the between-group difference in baseline-adjusted change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP from randomization to 6 months. RESULTS: Of 217 randomized patients (mean age, 45.3±10.2 years; 21% female), 107 were randomized to RDN and 110 were randomized to sham control. At 6 months, there was a greater reduction in 24-hour systolic BP in the RDN (-13.0±12.1 mm Hg) compared with the sham control group (-3.0±13.0 mm Hg; baseline-adjusted between-group difference, -9.4 mm Hg [95% CI, -12.8 to -5.9]; P<0.001). Compared with sham, 24-hour diastolic BP was lowered by -5.0 mm Hg ([95% CI, -7.5 to -2.4]; P<0.001) 6 months after RDN, and office systolic and diastolic BP was lowered by -6.4 mm Hg ([95% CI, -10.5 to -2.3]; P=0.003) and -5.1 mm Hg ([95% CI, -8.2 to -2.0]; P=0.001), respectively. One patient in the RDN group experienced an access site complication (hematoma), which resolved without sequelae. No other major device- or procedure-related safety events occurred through follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of Chinese patients with uncontrolled hypertension on a standardized triple pharmacotherapy, RDN was safe and reduced ambulatory and office BP at 6 months compared with sham. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02901704.

Office measurement vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: associations with mortality in patients with or without diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines suggest similar blood pressure (BP) targets in patients with and without diabetes and recommend ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to diagnose and classify hypertension. It was explored whether different levels of ambulatory and office BP and different hypertension phenotypes associate with differences of risk in diabetes and no diabetes. METHODS: This analysis assessed outcome data from the Spanish ABPM Registry in 59 124 patients with complete available data. The associations between office, mean, daytime, and nighttime ambulatory BP with the risk in patients with or without diabetes were explored. The effects of diabetes on mortality in different hypertension phenotypes, i.e. sustained hypertension, white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, compared with normotension were studied. Analyses were done with Cox regression analyses and adjusted for demographic and clinical confounders. RESULTS: A total of 59 124 patients were recruited from 223 primary care centres in Spain. The majority had an office systolic BP >140 mmHg (36 700 patients), and 23 128 (40.6%) patients were untreated. Diabetes was diagnosed in 11 391 patients (19.2%). Concomitant cardiovascular (CV) disease was present in 2521 patients (23.1%) with diabetes and 4616 (10.0%) without diabetes. Twenty-four-hour mean, daytime, and nighttime ambulatory BP were associated with increased risk in diabetes and no diabetes, while in office BP, there was no clear association with no differences with and without diabetes. While the relative association of BP to CV death risk was similar in diabetes compared with no diabetes (mean interaction P = .80, daytime interaction P = .97, and nighttime interaction P = .32), increased event rates occurred in diabetes for all ABPM parameters for CV death and all-cause death. White-coat hypertension was not associated with risk for CV death (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.03) and slightly reduced risk for all-cause death in no diabetes (hazard ratio 0.89; confidence interval 0.81-0.98) but without significant interaction between diabetes and no diabetes. Sustained hypertension and masked hypertension in diabetes and no diabetes were associated with even higher risk. There were no significant interactions in hypertensive phenotypes between diabetes and no diabetes and CV death risk (interaction P = .26), while some interaction was present for all-cause death (interaction P = .043) and non-CV death (interaction P = .053). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes increased the risk for all-cause death, CV, and non-CV death at every level of office and ambulatory BP. Masked and sustained hypertension confer to the highest risk, while white-coat hypertension appears grossly neutral without interaction of relative risk between diabetes and no diabetes. These results support recommendations of international guidelines for strict BP control and using ABPM for classification and assessment of risk and control of hypertension, particularly in patients with diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Ultrasound-assisted endovascular thrombolysis versus large-bore thrombectomy in acute intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism: The propensity-matched EKNARI cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) and large-bore-thrombectomy (LBT) are under investigation for the treatment of intermediate-high and high-risk pulmonary embolisms (PE). Comparative studies investigating both devices are scarce. AIMS: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two most frequently used devices for treatment of acute PE. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study included 125 patients undergoing LBT or USAT for intermediate- or high-risk PE between 2019 and 2023. Nearest neighbor propensity matching with logistic regression was used to achieve balance on potential confounders. The primary outcome was the change in the right to left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio between baseline and 24 h. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 95 patients remained in the sample, of which 69 (73%) underwent USAT and 26 (27%) LBT. The RV/LV ratio decrease between baseline and 24 h was greater in the LBT than in the USAT group (adjusted between-group difference: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04; p = 0.001). Both procedures were safe and adverse events occurred rarely (10% following USAT vs. 4% following LBT; p = 0.439). CONCLUSION: In acute intermediate-high and high-risk PE, both LBT and USAT were feasible and safe. The reduction in RV/LV ratio was greater following LBT than USAT. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Empagliflozin, irrespective of blood pressure, improves outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the EMPEROR-Preserved trial.

AIMS: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction. This study aims to evaluate if systolic blood pressure (SBP) moderates these effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: The association of SBP and the treatment effects of empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Preserved (empagliflozin outcome trial in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction) was evaluated. Randomized patients (n 5988) were grouped according to SBP at baseline (110 mmHg, n 455; 110130 mmHg, n 2415; 130 mmHg, n 3118). The effect of empagliflozin on blood pressure, cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome), total HF hospitalizations, and rate of decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate was studied. Over a median of 26.2 months, the placebo-corrected decline was small and not significantly different across baseline SBP. On placebo, the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was 8.58 at 130 mmHg, 8.26 at 110130 mmHg, and 11.59 events per 100 patient-years at 110 mmHg (P 0.12 vs. 130 mmHg, P 0.08 vs. 110130 mmHg). There was no evidence for baseline SBP moderating the effect of empagliflozin on risk of HF events (primary endpoint interaction P 0.69, recurrent HF hospitalizations interaction P 0.55). When comparing empagliflozin with placebo, SBP did not meaningfully associate with adverse events such as hypotension, volume depletion, and acute renal failure. CONCLUSION: In EMPEROR-Preserved, empagliflozin was effective and safe without SBP meaningfully moderating empagliflozins treatment effects. This analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved shows that empagliflozin can be used safely and effectively without blood pressure being a meaningful moderator of the drug benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT03057951.

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.

Renal denervation in the management of hypertension in adults. A clinical consensus statement of the ESC Council on Hypertension and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).

Since the publication of the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension, several high-quality studies, including randomised, sham-controlled trials on catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) were published, confirming both the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety of radiofrequency and ultrasound RDN in a broad range of patients with hypertension, including resistant hypertension. A clinical consensus document by the ESC Council on Hypertension and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) on RDN in the management of hypertension was considered necessary to inform clinical practice. This expert group proposes that RDN is an adjunct treatment option in uncontrolled resistant hypertension, confirmed by ambulatory BP measurements, despite best efforts at lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. RDN may also be used in patients who are unable to tolerate antihypertensive medications in the long term. A shared decision-making process is a key feature and preferably includes a patient who is well informed on the benefits and limitations of the procedure. The decision-making process should take (i) the patient's global cardiovascular (CV) risk and/or (ii) the presence of hypertension-mediated organ damage or CV complications into account. Multidisciplinary hypertension teams involving hypertension experts and interventionalists evaluate the indication and facilitate the RDN procedure. Interventionalists require expertise in renal interventions and specific training in RDN procedures. Centres performing these procedures require the skills and resources to deal with potential complications. Future research is needed to address open questions and investigate the impact of BP-lowering with RDN on clinical outcomes and potential clinical indications beyond hypertension.

Mechanical thrombectomy in intermediate- and high-risk acute pulmonary embolism: hemodynamic outcomes at three months.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical thrombectomy has been shown to reduce thrombus burden and pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and to improve right ventricular (RV) function in patients with high-risk or intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). As hemodynamic data after mechanical thrombectomy for PE are scarce, we aimed to assess the hemodynamic effects of mechanical thrombectomy in acute PE with right heart overload. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label study, patients with acute symptomatic, computed tomography-documented PE with signs of right heart overload underwent mechanical thrombectomy using the FlowTriever System. Right heart catheterization was performed immediately before and after thrombectomy and after three months. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before thrombectomy, discharge, and at three months. This analysis was done after 20 patients completed three months of follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (34% female) underwent mechanical thrombectomy, of which 20 completed three months follow-up with right heart catheterization. Most patients were at high (17%) or intermediate-high (76%) risk and had bilateral PE (79%). Before thrombectomy, systolic PAP (sPAP) was severely elevated (mean 51.3 ± 11.6 mmHg). Mean sPAP dropped by -15.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI]: -18.9 to -11.0; p < 0.001) immediately after the procedure and continued to decrease from post-thrombectomy to three months (-6.4 mmHg, 95% CI: -10-0 to -2.9; p = 0.002). RV/left ventricular (LV) ratio immediately reduced within two days by -0.37 (95% CI: -0.47 to -0.27; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with a tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE)/sPAP ratio < 0.31 mm/mmHg decreased from 28% at baseline to 0% before discharge and at three months (p = 0.007). There were no procedure-related major adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical thrombectomy for acute PE was safe and immediately reduced PAP and improved right heart function. The reduction in PAP was maintained at three months follow-up.

Impact of drug adherence on blood pressure response to alcohol-mediated renal denervation.

PURPOSE: While poor drug adherence is frequent in patients with resistant hypertension, detailed analyses of the impact of drug adherence on the success of renal denervation are scarce. We report drug adherence at baseline, changes in drug adherence, and the influence of these parameters on blood pressure changes at 6 and 12 months in patients treated with alcohol-mediated renal denervation as part of the Peregrine study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urinary detection of antihypertensive drugs was performed using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Full adherence, partial adherence, and complete non-adherence were defined as 0, 1, or ≥2 drugs not detected, respectively. RESULTS: Renal denervation was performed in 45 patients with uncontrolled hypertension on ≥3 antihypertensive medications (62% men, age 55 ± 10 years). At baseline, the proportion of fully, partially, and non-adherent patients was 62% (n = 28), 16% (n = 7), and 22% (n = 10), respectively. At 6 months, adherence improved by 21% (n = 9), remained unchanged at 49% (n = 21), and worsened by 30% (n = 13). Mean 24-h systolic blood pressure decreased by 10 ± 13, 10 ± 4, and 14 ± 19 mmHg in fully, partially, and non-adherent patients (p = 0.77), and by 14 ± 14, 8 ± 11, and 14 ± 18 mmHg in patients who improved, maintained, or decreased adherence, respectively (p = 0.35). The results at 12 months were similar. CONCLUSION: About 40% of patients with apparently treatment-resistant hypertension were not fully adherent at baseline, and adherence decreased further in 30%. Nevertheless, mean blood pressure changes after renal denervation were similar irrespective of drug adherence. Our results suggest that such patients may benefit from alcohol-mediated renal denervation, irrespective of drug adherence. These findings are hypothesis-generating and need to be confirmed in ongoing sham-controlled trials.

Blood pressure lowering with alcohol-mediated renal denervation using the Peregrine infusion Catheter is independent of injection site location.

OBJECTIVES: The current analysis utilized core laboratory angiographic data from a prospective, single-arm, open-label, multi-center feasibility study to ascertain whether the location of alcohol infusion within main renal arteries during renal denervation (RDN) had an impact on the BP-lowering effect at 6 months. BACKGROUND: The influence of the location of alcohol infusion during RDN, within the main renal artery (proximal, middle, or distal), on the magnitude of the blood pressure (BP) lowering is unstudied. METHODS: The Peregrine Catheter was used to perform alcohol-mediated RDN with an infusion of 0.6 mL of alcohol per artery as the neurolytic agent in 90 main arteries and four accessory arteries of 45 patients with hypertension. RESULTS: No relationship between the site of alcohol infusion and change from baseline in both office systolic and 24-hour systolic ambulatory BP (ABP) at 6 months was observed. When analyzed at the artery level, the least squares (LS) mean changes ± SEM from baseline to 6 months post-procedure in 24-hour systolic ABP when analyzed by renal arterial location were -11.9 ± 2.4 mmHg (distal), -10 ± 1.6 mmHg (middle), and -10.6 ± 1.3 mmHg (proximal) (all p < 0.0001 for change from baseline within groups). The results were similar for office systolic BP. There was no difference between treated locations (proximal is reference). CONCLUSION: In this post-hoc analysis, the location of alcohol infusion within the main renal artery using the Peregrine system, with alcohol as the neurolytic agent for chemical RDN, did not affect the magnitude of BP changes at 6 months.

Valvular heart disease in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Valvular heart disease (VHD) is common in patients with impaired renal function, especially in those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis. Progressive sclerosis and calcification of the valves and valvular annuli are major components of the etiology. These processes typically affect the aortic and mitral valve and can lead to both valvular insufficiency and stenosis. As recommended by the 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of VHD, surgical treatment remains the standard care for most cases of severe VHD. However, chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased mortality when compared with patients with preserved renal function. Interventional treatment options have emerged as an effective and safe alternative for patients older than 75 years and/or with increased surgical risk. Consequently, in patients with CKD at increased surgical risk who have suitable anatomical morphology, transcatheter replacement and/or repair should be discussed in the interdisciplinary "heart team."

Randomized trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions that include a placebo control: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The difference in the benefit of invasive cardiovascular interventions compared with placebo controls has not been analysed systematically. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched through 29 March 2020. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions (including catheter-based interventions and pacemaker-like devices) investigating predefined primary outcomes were included. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and odds ratios were calculated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Meta-regression analyses were performed to assess whether estimates of treatment effects were associated with methodological characteristics of trials. Thirty trials, including 4102 patients, were analysed. The overall risk of bias was judged to be low in only 43% of the trials. Ten trials (33%) demonstrated statistically significant superiority of invasive interventions over placebo controls for the respective predefined primary outcomes. In almost half of the 16 trials investigating continuous predefined primary outcomes, the SMD between the active and placebo procedure indicated a small (n = 4) to moderate (n = 3) treatment effect of active treatment over placebo. In contrast, one trial indicated a small treatment effect in favour of the placebo procedure. In the remaining trials, there was no relevant treatment effect of active treatment over placebo. In trials with a protocol-mandated stable and symmetrical use of co-interventions, the superiority of active procedures vs. invasive placebo procedures was significantly larger as compared with trials with frequent or unbalanced changes in co-interventions (P for interaction 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The additional treatment effect of invasive cardiovascular interventions compared with placebo controls was small in most trials.

Assessing Adherence to Antihypertensive Medication by Means of Dose-Dependent Reference Plasma Concentration Ranges and Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry Analysis.

Poor adherence to antihypertensive drug therapy is a well-recognized problem and can be assessed by mass spectrometry-based analyses of body fluids. However, contrary statements exist whether drug quantification in blood or qualitative screening in urine is more suitable. The present pilot study aimed to further elucidate the power of blood plasma drug concentrations for adherence monitoring by developing and validating a quantification procedure for nine antihypertensive drugs (amlodipine, bisoprolol, candesartan, canrenone, carvedilol, metoprolol, olmesartan, torasemide, and valsartan) in blood plasma using liquid-liquid extraction and an ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-ion trap mass spectrometry analysis. The procedure should then be used for an adherence assessment and compared with the results of an established qualitative urine screening. Selectivity, carryover, matrix effect, accuracy, precision, dilution integrity, and stability were successfully validated, except for amlodipine. The applicability was demonstrated by analyzing 19 plasma samples containing 28 antihypertensive drugs and comparing the measured concentrations with calculated dose-dependent reference plasma concentration ranges. The interpretation of plasma concentrations was found to be more sophisticated and time-consuming than that of urine screening results, and adherence could not be assessed in two cases (10%) due to measured plasma concentrations below the lower limit of quantification. However, 14 out of 19 subjects were classified as adherent (75%) and three as nonadherent (15%), in contrast to 19 (100%) that were claimed to be adherent based on the results of the qualitative urine screening. Nevertheless, further data is needed to estimate whether plasma quantification is superior in terms of assessing adherence to antihypertensive medication.

Renal Denervation: Is It Ready for Prime Time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Interventional cardiology and in particular the field of renal denervation is subject to constant change. This review provides an up to date overview of renal denervation trials and an outlook on what to expect in the future. RECENT FINDINGS: After the sham-controlled SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial dampened the euphoria following early renal denervation trials, the recently published results of the sham-controlled SPYRAL HTN and RADIANCE HTN trials provided proof-of-principle for the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of renal denervation. However, these studies underline the major issue of patients' non-adherence to antihypertensive medication as well as the need for reliable patient- and procedure-related predictors of response. The second generation of sham-controlled renal denervation trials provided proof of principle for the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of RDN. However, larger trials have to assess long-term safety and efficacy.

Renal denervation in the management of hypertension.

Arterial hypertension is a global leading cause of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal disease, as well as mortality. Although pharmacotherapy is safe and effective in lowering blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease risk, BP control remains poor, and the mortality rates associated with high BP have been steadily increasing. Device-based therapies have been investigated to overcome barriers to pharmacotherapy, including non-adherence and low rates of persistence to daily medications. Among these device-based therapies, catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) has been most extensively examined over the past 15 years. In this state-of-the-art article, we summarise the rationale for RDN, review the available evidence, provide recommendations for a safe procedure, and discuss the role of RDN in current guidelines and clinical practice.