Kjeldsen, Sverre Erik

Even though it has been more than a decade since renal denervation (RDN) was first used to treat hypertension and an intense effort on researching this therapy has been made, it is still not clear how RDN fits into the antihypertensive arsenal. There is no question that RDN lowers blood pressure (BP), it does so to an extent at best corresponding to one antihypertensive drug. The procedure has an excellent safety record. However, it remains clinically impossible to predict whose BP responds to RDN and whose does not. Long-term efficacy data on BP reduction are still unconvincing despite the recent results in the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial; experimental studies indicate that reinnervation is occurring after RDN. Although BP is an acceptable surrogate endpoint, there is complete lack of outcome data with RDN. Clear indications for RDN are lacking although patients with resistant hypertension, those with documented increase in activity of the sympathetic system and perhaps those who desire to take fewest medication may be considered.

Abstract —The Hypertension Optimal Treatment Study is a prospective trial conducted in 26 countries. The aims are to (1) evaluate the relationship between three levels of target office diastolic blood pressure (BP) (≤80, ≤85, or ≤90 mm Hg) and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients and (2) examine the effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of 75 mg aspirin daily versus placebo. A total of 19 193 patients between 50 and 80 years of age had been randomized by the end of April 1994. Treatment was initiated with felodipine 5 mg daily, and additional therapy was given in accordance with a set protocol. The present substudy of 926 patients performed in nine countries aimed to (1) compare home with office BP in a representative subsample of the HOT population after the titration of treatment was completed and (2) clarify whether the separation into the target groups could be expanded into the out-of-office setting. The differences between office and home measurements in diastolic BP of 0.2 mm Hg (SD, 9; 95% confidence interval, −0.36 to 0.81; P =.40) and systolic BP of 0.5 mm Hg (SD, 15; 95% confidence interval, −0.53 to 1.46; P =.21) were not significant. The group differences in home BP were 1.9 mm Hg (≤80 versus ≤85) and 1.2 mm Hg (≤85 versus ≤90) for diastolic BP (F=11.69; ANOVA, P <.0001) and 2.6 and 2.1 mm Hg for systolic BP (F=8.44, P =.0002). Thus, office and home BPs measured with the same semiautomatic device are comparable in treated hypertensive subjects in the HOT Study, and the separation into the target groups based on office readings prevails at home.