Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency-based renal denervation on resistant hypertensive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: New therapies for resistant hypertension (RH), including renal denervation (RDN), have been studied. AIM: Access the safety and effectiveness of radiofrequency-based RDN vs pharmacological treatment for RH. METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases, focusing on studies that compared the effects of radiofrequency-based RDN versus pharmacological treatment for RH. Treatment effects for binary and continuous endpoints were pooled and used, respectively, odds-ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to analyze continuous outcomes. RESULTS: In the 10 included studies, involving 1.182 patients, 682 received radiofrequency-based RDN. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 84 months. Analysis revealed that the RDN group had a significant reduction in office systolic blood pressure (BP) (MD − 9.5 mmHg; 95% CI − 16.81 to − 2.29; P = 0.01), office diastolic BP (MD − 5.1 mmHg; 95% CI − 8.42 to − 2.80; P < 0.001), 24 h systolic BP (MD − 4.8 mmHg; 95% CI − 7.26 to − 2.42; P < 0.001). For 24 h diastolic BP RDN did not have a significant reduction (MD − 2.3 mmHg; 95% CI − 4.19 to − 0.52; P = 0.012). The heterogeneity between the studies was high, visible in the funnel and Baujat plots. The OR was non-significant for non-serious adverse events, but also clinically significant for hypertensive crises and strokes for the RDN group. CONCLUSIONS: While the pharmacological regimen of 3 or more anti-hypertensive, including a diuretic, still be the first-line option for RH treatment, our results support that radiofrequency-based RDN is superior in reducing global BP and is safe.

Efficacy and Safety of Radiofrequency-Based Renal Denervation on Resistant Hypertensive Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: New therapies for resistant hypertension (RH), including renal denervation (RDN), have been studied. AIM: Access the safety and effectiveness of radiofrequency-based RDN vs pharmacological treatment for RH. METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases, focusing on studies that compared the effects of radiofrequency-based RDN versus pharmacological treatment for RH. Treatment effects for binary and continuous endpoints were pooled and used, respectively, odds-ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to analyze continuous outcomes. RESULTS: In the 10 included studies, involving 1.182 patients, 682 received radiofrequency-based RDN. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 84 months. Analysis revealed that the RDN group had a significant reduction in office systolic blood pressure (BP) (MD - 9.5 mmHg; 95% CI - 16.81 to - 2.29; P = 0.01), office diastolic BP (MD - 5.1 mmHg; 95% CI - 8.42 to - 2.80; P < 0.001), 24 h systolic BP (MD - 4.8 mmHg; 95% CI - 7.26 to - 2.42; P < 0.001). For 24 h diastolic BP RDN did not have a significant reduction (MD - 2.3 mmHg; 95% CI - 4.19 to - 0.52; P = 0.012). The heterogeneity between the studies was high, visible in the funnel and Baujat plots. The OR was non-significant for non-serious adverse events, but also clinically significant for hypertensive crises and strokes for the RDN group. CONCLUSIONS: While the pharmacological regimen of 3 or more anti-hypertensive, including a diuretic, still be the first-line option for RH treatment, our results support that radiofrequency-based RDN is superior in reducing global BP and is safe.

Eficácia do sacubitril-valsartana comparado com IECA ou BRA para prevenir a recorrência de FA após ablação por cateter: uma meta-análise / Efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan compared with ACE inhibitors or ARBs to prevent AF recurrence after catheter ablation: a meta-analysis

INTRODUÇÃO: Em pacientes que foram submetidos a ablação por cateter devido a fibrilação atrial pode ocorrer a recorrência deste quadro. Não é estabelecido o efeito do S/V na prevenção da recorrência de fibrilação atrial (FA) comparado a Inibidores da Enzima Conversora da Angiotensina (IECA) ou Bloqueadores do Receptor da Angiotensina II (BRA). Essa metaanálise visa estabelecer qual a melhor escolha terapêutica para prevenção da recorrência de FA após ablação por catéter. MÉTODO: Foi realizada uma busca sistemática nas bases do PubMed, Embase e Cochrane para ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR) e estudos observacionais comparando uso de S/V com IECA/BRA em pacientes que realizaram ablação por cateter. Os resultados foram apresentados em diferenças de médias (DM), com intervalo de confiança de 95% (IC). A heterogeneidade foi avaliada pelo I2 e desfechos expressos em riscos relativos (RR), utilizando o software R versão 4.2.3. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos 3 ensaios clínicos randomizados e 1 estudo de coorte, composto por 642 pacientes, com 319 pacientes no grupo S/V e 323 no grupo controle. O seguimento dos estudos variou de 12 meses a 36 meses, a média de idade variou de 58.9 a 65.82 anos. Foi demonstrado a redução de ocorrência de FA persistente com uma diferença significativa favorecendo o grupo S/V (RR 0.43; 95% IC 0,25-0.76; P=0.003; I2=80%) comparado com o grupo IECA/BRA. Na análise houve uma redução significativa do Índice de Volume Atrial Esquerdo (IVAE) (MD -5.34ml/m2; 95% IC -8.77,-1.91; P=0.002; I2= 57%) no grupo S/V comparado com IECA/BRA. Não houve diferença significativa da fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo com o uso de S/V (MD 1.24%; 95% IC -0.13, 2.61; P=0.076; I2= 0%) em comparação com IECA/BRA. CONCLUSÃO: Nesta metanálise, foi evidenciada a eficácia de S/V na diminuição da incidência de FA em pacientes submetidos à ablação por cateter, em comparação ao uso de IECA/ BRA. Contudo, ressalta-se a necessidade de realização de mais ensaios clínicos randomizados para uma avaliação mais abrangente de sua eficácia na redução da recorrência de FA em paciente pós ablação por cateter na prática clínica.