Efficacy and Safety of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation for Patients With Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Xiao Chen, Jie Meng, Qiufeng Zhou, Yuehua Ni, Changyang Zuo, Yanfang Zhang
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Catheter-Based Renal Denervation for Patients With Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Xiao Chen,&nbsp;Jie Meng,&nbsp;Qiufeng Zhou,&nbsp;Yuehua Ni,&nbsp;Changyang Zuo,&nbsp;Yanfang Zhang","doi":"10.1111/jch.70080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) for patients with hypertension. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published before December 31, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to assess the results of the meta-analyses and the risk of bias plot. We pooled 2208 participants from 13 studies. The RDN was superior to the sham surgery group in the change in 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) and the change in 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (ADBP) (MD: −4.55 mmHg, 95% CI: −5.65 to −3.44; MD: −2.37 mmHg, 95% CI: −3.06 to −1.68, respectively). For the change in daytime ASBP and ADBP, significant differences were found between the RDN group and the sham group (MD: −6.21 mmHg, 95% CI: −7.61 to −4.80; MD: −2.96, 95% CI: −3.85 to −2.07). Compared to the sham surgery group, the RDN group showed better results in the change in night-time ASBP and ADBP (MD: −4.67 mmHg, 95% CI: −6.32 to −3.03; MD: −2.28 mmHg, 95% CI: −3.33 to −1.24). No significant differences were found between the RDN group and the sham group in terms of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (<i>p</i> = 0.39 and 0.07). Subgroup analyses showed that RDN remains effective at long-term follow-up, and both ultrasound and radiofrequency RDN were effective. Current evidence shows that RDN is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and does not increase the risk of AEs and SAEs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jch.70080","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jch.70080","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) for patients with hypertension. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published before December 31, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to assess the results of the meta-analyses and the risk of bias plot. We pooled 2208 participants from 13 studies. The RDN was superior to the sham surgery group in the change in 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) and the change in 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (ADBP) (MD: −4.55 mmHg, 95% CI: −5.65 to −3.44; MD: −2.37 mmHg, 95% CI: −3.06 to −1.68, respectively). For the change in daytime ASBP and ADBP, significant differences were found between the RDN group and the sham group (MD: −6.21 mmHg, 95% CI: −7.61 to −4.80; MD: −2.96, 95% CI: −3.85 to −2.07). Compared to the sham surgery group, the RDN group showed better results in the change in night-time ASBP and ADBP (MD: −4.67 mmHg, 95% CI: −6.32 to −3.03; MD: −2.28 mmHg, 95% CI: −3.33 to −1.24). No significant differences were found between the RDN group and the sham group in terms of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (p = 0.39 and 0.07). Subgroup analyses showed that RDN remains effective at long-term follow-up, and both ultrasound and radiofrequency RDN were effective. Current evidence shows that RDN is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and does not increase the risk of AEs and SAEs.

基于导管的肾去神经治疗高血压患者的有效性和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
本荟萃分析评估了肾去神经支配(RDN)治疗高血压患者的有效性和安全性。系统检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和ClinicalTrials.gov,以确定2024年12月31日前发表的相关研究。采用Review Manager 5.3软件对meta分析结果和偏倚风险图进行评估。我们汇集了来自13项研究的2208名参与者。在24小时动态收缩压(ASBP)和24小时动态舒张压(ADBP)变化方面,RDN优于假手术组(MD:−4.55 mmHg, 95% CI:−5.65 ~−3.44;MD:−2.37 mmHg, 95% CI:−3.06 ~−1.68)。对于日间ASBP和ADBP的变化,RDN组和sham组之间存在显著差异(MD:−6.21 mmHg, 95% CI:−7.61 ~−4.80;MD:−2.96,95% CI:−3.85 ~−2.07)。与假手术组相比,RDN组夜间ASBP和ADBP的变化效果更好(MD: - 4.67 mmHg, 95% CI: - 6.32 ~ - 3.03;MD:−2.28 mmHg, 95% CI:−3.33 ~−1.24)。在不良事件(ae)和严重不良事件(sae)方面,RDN组与sham组无显著差异(p = 0.39和0.07)。亚组分析显示,RDN在长期随访中仍然有效,超声和射频RDN均有效。目前的证据表明,RDN对高血压患者是一种有效的治疗方法,不会增加ae和SAEs的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Hypertension
Journal of Clinical Hypertension PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Hypertension is a peer-reviewed, monthly publication that serves internists, cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, hypertension specialists, primary care practitioners, pharmacists and all professionals interested in hypertension by providing objective, up-to-date information and practical recommendations on the full range of clinical aspects of hypertension. Commentaries and columns by experts in the field provide further insights into our original research articles as well as on major articles published elsewhere. Major guidelines for the management of hypertension are also an important feature of the Journal. Through its partnership with the World Hypertension League, JCH will include a new focus on hypertension and public health, including major policy issues, that features research and reviews related to disease characteristics and management at the population level.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信