肾交感神经去断对明确的顽固性高血压患者家庭血压监测的影响

K.F. Franzen , M. Reppel , M. Neuwirth , J. Köster , T. Graf , F. Bode , J. Weil , K. Mortensen
{"title":"肾交感神经去断对明确的顽固性高血压患者家庭血压监测的影响","authors":"K.F. Franzen ,&nbsp;M. Reppel ,&nbsp;M. Neuwirth ,&nbsp;J. Köster ,&nbsp;T. Graf ,&nbsp;F. Bode ,&nbsp;J. Weil ,&nbsp;K. Mortensen","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrsc.2015.09.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Catheter-based percutaneous renal denervation therapy (RDN) is a controversially discussed treatment-strategy for patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is superior to office blood pressure (OBP) measurements documenting effects of drug or interventional therapy and for predicting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We therefore aimed at comparing effects of RDN on OBP and HBPM.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>28 patients with resistant hypertension were studied; 21 patients (29–85<!--> <!-->years, median 67<!--> <!-->years, 5.4<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->1.3 antihypertensive drugs) were included into the treatment arm and 7 patients (37–70<!--> <!-->years, median 68<!--> <!-->years, 5.1<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->2.2 antihypertensive drugs) served as controls. RDN was performed with a Medtronic™ radiofrequency catheter-ablation-system. For OBP and HBPM measurements patients were followed up to 6<!--> <!-->months. For controls, a mean of approximately 378 measurements in 167<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->13.5<!--> <!-->days was included into analysis. In RDN patients follow-up was 157.7<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->61.8<!--> <!-->days with a mean of approximately 323 ambulatory measurements. A mean for each week was calculated.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In controls, no significant change of OBP was observed (baseline: systolic 162.2<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->11.6<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg vs. 6<!--> <!-->months: systolic 162.8<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->22.9<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg; p<!--> <!-->&gt;<!--> <!-->0.05). Accordingly, HBPM values didn't change (baseline: systolic 161.2<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->15.1<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg vs. 6<!--> <!-->months: systolic 155.8<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->24.6<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg, p<!--> <!-->&gt;<!--> <!-->0.05). In RDN patients a significant reduction of OBP (baseline: systolic 169<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->12.5<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg vs. 6<!--> <!-->months: systolic 150.6<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->19.2<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg, p<!--> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.01) and HBPM (baseline: systolic 156.2<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->12.9<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg vs. 6<!--> <!-->months: systolic 139.7<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->10.2<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg, p<!--> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.001) was observed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In patients with resistant hypertension RDN significantly reduced HBPM and OBP already one week after treatment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":91232,"journal":{"name":"Clinical trials and regulatory science in cardiology","volume":"12 ","pages":"Pages 23-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ctrsc.2015.09.005","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of renal sympathetic denervation on home blood pressure monitoring in well defined patients with resistant hypertension\",\"authors\":\"K.F. Franzen ,&nbsp;M. Reppel ,&nbsp;M. Neuwirth ,&nbsp;J. Köster ,&nbsp;T. Graf ,&nbsp;F. Bode ,&nbsp;J. Weil ,&nbsp;K. Mortensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ctrsc.2015.09.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Catheter-based percutaneous renal denervation therapy (RDN) is a controversially discussed treatment-strategy for patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is superior to office blood pressure (OBP) measurements documenting effects of drug or interventional therapy and for predicting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We therefore aimed at comparing effects of RDN on OBP and HBPM.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>28 patients with resistant hypertension were studied; 21 patients (29–85<!--> <!-->years, median 67<!--> <!-->years, 5.4<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->1.3 antihypertensive drugs) were included into the treatment arm and 7 patients (37–70<!--> <!-->years, median 68<!--> <!-->years, 5.1<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->2.2 antihypertensive drugs) served as controls. RDN was performed with a Medtronic™ radiofrequency catheter-ablation-system. For OBP and HBPM measurements patients were followed up to 6<!--> <!-->months. For controls, a mean of approximately 378 measurements in 167<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->13.5<!--> <!-->days was included into analysis. In RDN patients follow-up was 157.7<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->61.8<!--> <!-->days with a mean of approximately 323 ambulatory measurements. A mean for each week was calculated.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In controls, no significant change of OBP was observed (baseline: systolic 162.2<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->11.6<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg vs. 6<!--> <!-->months: systolic 162.8<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->22.9<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg; p<!--> <!-->&gt;<!--> <!-->0.05). Accordingly, HBPM values didn't change (baseline: systolic 161.2<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->15.1<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg vs. 6<!--> <!-->months: systolic 155.8<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->24.6<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg, p<!--> <!-->&gt;<!--> <!-->0.05). In RDN patients a significant reduction of OBP (baseline: systolic 169<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->12.5<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg vs. 6<!--> <!-->months: systolic 150.6<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->19.2<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg, p<!--> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.01) and HBPM (baseline: systolic 156.2<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->12.9<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg vs. 6<!--> <!-->months: systolic 139.7<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->10.2<!--> <!-->mm<!--> <!-->Hg, p<!--> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.001) was observed.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In patients with resistant hypertension RDN significantly reduced HBPM and OBP already one week after treatment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":91232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical trials and regulatory science in cardiology\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 23-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ctrsc.2015.09.005\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical trials and regulatory science in cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405587515300147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical trials and regulatory science in cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405587515300147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于导管的经皮肾去神经治疗(RDN)是一种有争议的治疗顽固性高血压的策略。家庭血压监测(HBPM)优于办公室血压(OBP)测量,记录药物或介入治疗的效果,并预测心血管发病率和死亡率。因此,我们的目的是比较RDN对OBP和HBPM的影响。方法对28例顽固性高血压患者进行分析;治疗组21例(29 ~ 85岁,中位67岁,服用5.4±1.3种降压药),对照组7例(37 ~ 70岁,中位68岁,服用5.1±2.2种降压药)。RDN采用美敦力™射频导管消融系统进行。对于OBP和HBPM测量,患者随访6个月。对于对照组,167±13.5天内平均约378次测量被纳入分析。RDN患者随访157.7±61.8天,平均约323次动态测量。计算每周的平均值。结果对照组OBP无明显变化(基线:收缩压162.2±11.6 mm Hg, 6个月:收缩压162.8±22.9 mm Hg;p比;0.05)。据此,HBPM值没有变化(基线:收缩压161.2±15.1 mm Hg vs. 6个月:收缩压155.8±24.6 mm Hg, p >0.05)。RDN患者的OBP显著降低(基线:收缩压169±12.5 mm Hg, 6个月:收缩压150.6±19.2 mm Hg, p <0.01)和HBPM(基线:收缩压156.2±12.9 mm Hg, 6个月:收缩压139.7±10.2 mm Hg, p <0.001)。结论顽固性高血压患者治疗1周后,RDN可显著降低HBPM和OBP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of renal sympathetic denervation on home blood pressure monitoring in well defined patients with resistant hypertension

Background

Catheter-based percutaneous renal denervation therapy (RDN) is a controversially discussed treatment-strategy for patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is superior to office blood pressure (OBP) measurements documenting effects of drug or interventional therapy and for predicting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We therefore aimed at comparing effects of RDN on OBP and HBPM.

Methods

28 patients with resistant hypertension were studied; 21 patients (29–85 years, median 67 years, 5.4 ± 1.3 antihypertensive drugs) were included into the treatment arm and 7 patients (37–70 years, median 68 years, 5.1 ± 2.2 antihypertensive drugs) served as controls. RDN was performed with a Medtronic™ radiofrequency catheter-ablation-system. For OBP and HBPM measurements patients were followed up to 6 months. For controls, a mean of approximately 378 measurements in 167 ± 13.5 days was included into analysis. In RDN patients follow-up was 157.7 ± 61.8 days with a mean of approximately 323 ambulatory measurements. A mean for each week was calculated.

Results

In controls, no significant change of OBP was observed (baseline: systolic 162.2 ± 11.6 mm Hg vs. 6 months: systolic 162.8 ± 22.9 mm Hg; p > 0.05). Accordingly, HBPM values didn't change (baseline: systolic 161.2 ± 15.1 mm Hg vs. 6 months: systolic 155.8 ± 24.6 mm Hg, p > 0.05). In RDN patients a significant reduction of OBP (baseline: systolic 169 ± 12.5 mm Hg vs. 6 months: systolic 150.6 ± 19.2 mm Hg, p < 0.01) and HBPM (baseline: systolic 156.2 ± 12.9 mm Hg vs. 6 months: systolic 139.7 ± 10.2 mm Hg, p < 0.001) was observed.

Conclusion

In patients with resistant hypertension RDN significantly reduced HBPM and OBP already one week after treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信