Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2013 Jul 9;128(2):132-40.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000949. Epub 2013 Jun 18.

Ambulatory blood pressure changes after renal sympathetic denervation in patients with resistant hypertension

Felix Mahfoud  1 , Christian Ukena, Roland E Schmieder, Bodo Cremers, Lars C Rump, Oliver Vonend, Joachim Weil, Martin Schmidt, Uta C Hoppe, Thomas Zeller, Axel Bauer, Christian Ott, Erwin Blessing, Paul A Sobotka, Henry Krum, Markus Schlaich, Murray Esler, Michael Böhm
Affiliations
Free article
Clinical Trial

Ambulatory blood pressure changes after renal sympathetic denervation in patients with resistant hypertension

Felix Mahfoud et al. Circulation. .
Free article

Erratum in

  • Circulation. 2014 May 20;129(20):e502

Abstract

Background: Catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) reduces office blood pressure (BP) in patients with resistant hypertension according to office BP. Less is known about the effect of RDN on 24-hour BP measured by ambulatory BP monitoring and correlates of response in individuals with true or pseudoresistant hypertension.

Methods and results: A total of 346 uncontrolled hypertensive patients, separated according to daytime ambulatory BP monitoring into 303 with true resistant (office systolic BP [SBP] 172.2±22 mm Hg; 24-hour SBP 154±16.2 mm Hg) and 43 with pseudoresistant hypertension (office SBP 161.2±20.3 mm Hg; 24-hour SBP 121.1±19.6 mm Hg), from 10 centers were studied. At 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up, office SBP was reduced by 21.5/23.7/27.3 mm Hg, office diastolic BP by 8.9/9.5/11.7 mm Hg, and pulse pressure by 13.4/14.2/14.9 mm Hg (n=245/236/90; P for all <0.001), respectively. In patients with true treatment resistance there was a significant reduction with RDN in 24-hour SBP (-10.1/-10.2/-11.7 mm Hg, P<0.001), diastolic BP (-4.8/-4.9/-7.4 mm Hg, P<0.001), maximum SBP (-11.7/-10.0/-6.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) and minimum SBP (-6.0/-9.4/-13.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. There was no effect on ambulatory BP monitoring in pseudoresistant patients, whereas office BP was reduced to a similar extent. RDN was equally effective in reducing BP in different subgroups of patients. Office SBP at baseline was the only independent correlate of BP response.

Conclusions: RDN reduced office BP and improved relevant aspects of ambulatory BP monitoring, commonly linked to high cardiovascular risk, in patients with true-treatment resistant hypertension, whereas it only affected office BP in pseudoresistant hypertension.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00664638 NCT00888433.

Keywords: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; hypertension resistant to conventional therapy; sympathectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

Associated data