Effects of renal denervation on kidney function in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The present study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes following renal denervation (RDN) for hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Prospective studies published between January 1, 2010 and November 15, 2022 where systematically identified for RDN outcomes on office and ambulatory blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine and procedural characteristics from three online databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE). Random effects model to combine risk ratios and mean differences was used. Where possible, clinical outcomes were pooled and analyzed at 6, 12 and 24 months. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. 11 prospective trials, with a total of 226 patients with treatment resistant HTN receiving RDN met the inclusion criteria. Age ranged from 42.5 ± 13.8 to 66 ± 9. Main findings of this review included a reduction in systolic and diastolic office blood pressure at 6 [-19.8 (p < 0.00001)/-15.2 mm Hg (p < 0.00001)] and 12 months [-21.2 (p < 0.00001)/-9.86 mm Hg (p < 0.0005)] follow-up compared to baseline. This was also seen in systolic and diastolic 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure at 6 [-9.77 (p = 0.05)/-3.64 mm Hg (p = 0.09)] and 12 months [-13.42 (p = 0.0007)/-6.30 mm Hg (p = 0.001)] follow-up compared to baseline. The reduction in systolic and diastolic 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure was maintained to 24 months [(-16.30 (p = 0.0002)/-6.84 mm Hg (p = 0.0010)]. Analysis of kidney function through eGFR demonstrated non-significant results at 6 (+1.60 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.55), 12 (+5.27 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.17), and 24 months (+7.19 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.36) suggesting an interruption in natural CKD progression. Similar results were seen in analysis of serum creatinine at 6 (+0.120 mg/dL, p = 0.41), 12 (+0.100 mg/dL, p = 0.70), and 24 months (+0.07 mg/dL, p = 0.88). Assessment of procedural complications deemed RDN in a CKD cohort to be safe with an overall complication rate of 4.86%. With the current advances in RDN and its utility in multiple chronic diseases beyond hypertension, the current study summarizes critical findings that further substantiate the literature regarding the potential of such an intervention to be incorporated as an effective treatment for resistant hypertension and CKD.

Renal denervation for atrial fibrillation: a comprehensive updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study aims to compare clinical outcomes following renal denervation (RDN) in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Three online databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed) for literature related to outcomes of RDN on hypertension and AF, between January 1, 2010, and June 1, 2021. Where possible, risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were combined using a random effects model. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Seven trials were included that assessed the effect of adding RDN to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with hypertension and AF. A total of 711 patients (329 undergoing PVI + RDN and 382 undergoing PVI alone), with an age range of 56 ± 6 to 68 ± 9 years, were included. Pooled analysis showed a significant lowering of AF recurrence in the PVI + RDN (31.3%) group compared to the PVI-only (52.9%) group (p < 0.00001). Pooled analysis of patients with resistant hypertension showed a significant mean reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP) (-9.42 mm Hg, p = 0.05), but not diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (-4.11 mm Hg, p = 0.16) in favor of PVI + RDN. Additionally, the pooled analysis showed that PVI + RDN significantly improved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (+10.2 mL/min per 1.73 m2, p < 0.001) compared to PVI alone. RDN procedures in these trials have proven to be both safe and efficacious with an overall complication rate of 6.32%. Combined PVI and RDN is beneficial for patients with hypertension and AF. Combined therapy showed improvement in SBP and eGFR, reducing the risk of AF recurrence. RDN may serve as an innovative intervention in the treatment of AF.

Operative Versus Non-operative Management of Mid-diaphyseal Clavicle Fractures in the Skeletally Immature Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes and complications of operative vs non-operative management of mid-diaphyseal clavicle fractures in the skeletally immature population. RECENT FINDINGS: Traditionally, skeletally immature clavicle fractures have been managed non-operatively. However, there has been an increasing trend towards operative management with a lack of evidence indicating its effectiveness. METHODS: Two reviewers searched three online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed), independently and in duplicates, for literature comparing the outcomes and complications of operative versus non-operative management in skeletally-immature patients (defined as birth to 18 years of age) with a middiaphyseal clavicle fracture. Where possible, risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were combined using a random effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies, containing 522 skeletally immature patients (with 528 mid-diaphyseal clavicle fractures) with an age range of 8 to 18 years, with 148 patients undergoing operative management and 380 patients undergoing non-operative management, were included. Across the 6 studies that reported gender (N = 444), there were 335 males and 109 females. Patients were followed up from 2 weeks to 3.7 years across five studies (N = 201 patients) that reported follow-up time. There was no significant difference in the time to achieve union (p = 0.1), the time to return to activity (p = 0.09), and the overall complication rate (p = 0.50) between the operative and the non-operative groups. There is no significant difference between operative and non-operative management of skeletally immature mid-diaphyseal clavicle fractures. Clinical equipoise exists to study this further by means of a prospective, randomized, blinded control trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis of level II, III, and IV.