Renal denervation: Current evidence and remaining...
Transcript of Renal denervation: Current evidence and remaining...
Renal denervation: Current evidence and remaining uncertainties
Michel Azizi
Georges Pompidou European Hospital
Hypertension Unit
ESH excellence Center
Paris Descartes University
Clinical Investigation Center
INSERM CIC9201
Disclosures: Ardian/Medtronic, Cordis, Vessix
BP Control (<140/90 mmHg) among treated, %
4744
34
42
30
40
50
60
70
4 5 to 54 y 55 to 64 y 65 to 74 y Total
64
59
50
59
30
40
50
60
70
45 to 54 y 55 to 64 y 65 to 74 y Total
Men Women
France, ENNS Survey 2006-2007
Godet-Thobie H et al. BEH 2008;49-50: 478
Resistant hypertension
1. Estimated Prevalence : 5 to 25% in tertiary Hypertension Clinics
8-12 % in general population
2. Incidence: 0.7 cases per 100 person-years follow-up
3. Associated with TOD and high cardiovascular risk
4. Associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality
• Prognosis over 3.8 years of median follow-up: • unadjusted CVE rates: RH : 18.0% vs. non-RH: 13.5%, P<0.001• HR: 1.47 (95%CI: 1.33–1.62)
Daugherty SL et al. Circulation 2012, 125:1635Persell SD. Hypertension. 2011;57de la Sierra A et al. Hypertension. 2011;57:898Calhoun et al Circulation 2008;117:e510
Novel strategiesClinical development stage
1. Vasopeptidase inhibition, safety issues.
2. Dual angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI)
3. Aldosterone synthase inhibition
4. DHP-like new MRA
5. Endothelin antagonism
Preclinical development stage
1. Aminopeptidase A inhibition
2. Pro(renin) receptor blockade (handle region peptide)
3. ACE2 inhibition
4. ECE inhibition
5. Dual inhibitors
6. NHE3 inhibitors
7. Rho kinase inhibitors
8. Antisens therapy, siRNA…
Treatment of resistant hypertension by renal denervation
Renal Sympathetic efferent and afferent Nerves:Kidney as Recipient of Sympathetic Signals
Kidney as Origin of Central Sympathetic Drive
Renal AfferentNerves
HypertrophyArrhythmiaOxygen ConsumptionHeart Failure
VasoconstrictionAtherosclerosis
InsulinResistance
Renal IschemiaHypoxia AcidosisOxidative stressInflammationEndothelial factorsAdenosine
↑ Renin Release ���� RAAS activationSodium RetentionRightward Shift of Pressure-Natriuresis Curve
↓ Renal Blood Flow
Renal EfferentNerves
The central sympathetic overdrive in essential Hypertension
Normotensives
High Normals
White Coat
Borderline Htn
Essential Htn – Stage 1
Essential Htn – Stage 2/3
Essential Htn with LVH
Smith et al. AJH 2004; 17:217–222
Central Sympathetic Drive – Assessed by MSNA
Increased renal sympathetic activity in young and middle -aged untreated hypertensive patients
Di Bona et al. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2010; 298: R245.
• Arise from ~ T10-L2• Follow the renal artery to the kidney• Primarily lie within the adventitia
Vessel
Lumen
Media
Adventitia
Renal
Nerves
Renal Nerves as a Therapeutic Target
Percutaneous catheter-based transluminal renal ablation by delivery of RF energy
• 40-minute catheter-based procedure
• Selective denervation by delivery of 4 to 6 focal
low power RF energy ablations (5-8W) starting
close to the hilum before renal artery bifurcation
and then every ≈5 mm after pulling back and
rotating the catheter along the length of both renal
arteries.
• Blood flow minimizes surface/endothelial injury
Focal medial and adventitial fibrosis with minimal intimal thicknening and disruption of the internal elastic lamina
Kippy, R et al. Clin Res Cardiol DOI 10.1007/s00392-011-0346-8
All treated vessels were completely endothelialized after 6 months.
There was no inflammatory cells, renal arterial stenosis or thrombosis
6 months after renal denervation
Preclinical Data: Renal nerve injury at 6 mo.
Normal nerve Renal nerve injury 6 mo. after RD
Kippy, R et al. Clin Res Cardiol DOI 10.1007/s00392-011-0346-8
•Healing fibrosis causing a thickening of
the surrounding perineurium
•No inflammatory component
Renal denervation with the Simplicity ®catheter
Patient 1
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Days
One out of four AHTwas stopped becauseof hypotension
BP (m
mH
g)
Effect of renal devervation on BP
Symplicity HTN -2 Trial
Baseline
Drop-Outs
Registry
Treatment Group
Control Patients
offered treatment
Suboptimal
Anatomy
Registry
Control Group
Primary
Endpoint
6M
6M
12-36M
Anatomical Screening
(MRA, CTA, duplex
or angiogram)
24-hr ABPM
Randomized 1:1
Uncontrolled HTN
SBP ≥ 160 mmHg
(≥ 150 mmHg diabetics)
≥ 3 meds
“Baseline”
2 week observation
Baseline BP measure at end
of baseline period
Symplicity HTN-2 Investigators. The Lancet. 2010.
Assessed for Eligibility
(n=190)Excluded During Screening,
Prior to Randomization (n=84)
• BP < 160 at Baseline Visit (after 2-weeks of medication
compliance confirmation) (n=36; 19%)
• Ineligible anatomy (n=30; 16%)
• Declined participation (n=10; 5%)
• Other exclusion criteria discovered after consent (n=8; 4%)
Randomized (n=106)
Allocated to RDN
N=52 Treated
N=49 Analyzable
Allocated to Control
N=54 Control
N=51 Analyzable
12-month post-RDN
N=47
Per protocol, 6-mo
Post–RDN, N=35
Patient Disposition
Not-per-protocol*, 6-
mo Post–RDN, N=9
Crossover
N=46
(2 LTFU)
* Crossed-over with ineligible BP (<160 mmHg)
Baseline Characteristics
RDN
(n=52)
Control
(n=54)p-value
Age 58 ± 12 58 ± 12 0.97
Gender (% female) 35% 50% 0.12
Race (% Caucasian) 98% 96% >0.99
BMI (kg/m2) 31 ± 5 31 ± 5 0.77
Baseline Systolic BP (mmHg) 178 ± 18 178 ± 16 0.97
Baseline Diastolic BP (mmHg) 97 ± 16 98 ± 17 0.80
Type 2 diabetes 40% 28% 0.22
Coronary Artery Disease 19% 7% 0.09
Hypercholesterolemia 52% 52% >0.99
eGFR (MDRD, ml/min/1.73m2) 77 ± 19 86 ± 20 0.013
eGFR 45-60 (% patients) 21% 11% 0.19
Serum Creatinine (mg/dL) 1.0 ± 0.3 0.9 ± 0.2 0.003
Urine Alb/Creat Ratio (mg/g)† 128 ± 363 109 ± 254 0.64
RDN
(n=52)
Control
(n=54)p-value
Number Anti-HTN medications 5.2 ± 1.5 5.3 ± 1.8 0.75
% patients on HTN meds >5 years 71% 78% 0.51
% percent patients on ≥5 meds. 67% 57% 0.32
% patients on drug class:
ACEi/ARB 96% 94% >0.99
Direct renin inhibitor 15% 19% 0.80
Beta-adrenergic blocker 83% 69% 0.12
Calcium channel blocker 79% 83% 0.62
Diuretic 89% 91% 0.76
Aldosterone antagonist 17% 17% >0.99
Vasodilator 15% 17% >0.99
Alpha-1 adrenergic blocker 33% 19% 0.12
Centrally acting sympatholytic 52% 52% >0.99
Baseline Medications
BP decrease at 6 months
RDN (n=52) Control (n=54) p
Office BP (mmHg) -32±±±±23/-12±±±±11 (n=49) +1±±±±21/0±±±±10 (n=51) <0.0001
Self BP (mmHg) -20±17/-12±11 (n=32) +2±13/0±7 (n=40) <0.0001
24h-ABPM (mmHg) -11±±±±15/-7±±±±11 (n=20) -3±±±±19/-1±±±±12 (n=25) 0.006/0.014
# Med Dose Decrease (%) 10 (20%) 3 (6%) 0.04
# Med Dose Increase (%) 4 (8%) 6(12%) 0.74
Distribution of Office SBP for the RDN Group%
Pa
tie
nts
Esler M. et al. Circulation; 126:2976
Pre-
RDN
6
month
12
month
178.3
(18.3)
146.7
(23.3)
150.7
(21.9)
96.1
(15.5)
84.4
(17.0)
87.0
(16.1)
10% of patients did not respond to RDN
Distribution of office SBP for the crossover group (n= 35)
% P
ati
en
ts
Esler M. ACC 2012
Pre-
RDN
6
month
BP
Change
190.0
(19.6)
166.3
(24.7)
-23.7
(27.5)
99.9
(15.1)
91.5
(14.6)
-8.4
(12.1)
Crossover (n=35)
6 months post-
RDN
Decrease (#
Meds or Dose)
18.2%
(6/33)
Increase (#
Meds or Dose)
15.2%
(5/33)
Renal Function Over Time
76.9 77.1 78.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
BL (N=49) 6 M (N=49) 12 M (N=45)
Crossover
88.8 89.3 85.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
BL (N=35) 6 M (N=35) 12 M (N=35)
RDNEsler M. ACC 2012
Procedural Safety• 38 minute median procedure time
– Average of 4 ablations per artery
• IV narcotics & sedatives used to manage pain during delivery of RF
1. No serious device or procedure related adverse events (n=52)
2. Minor adverse events
• 1 femoral artery pseudoaneurysm treated with manual compression
• 1 post-procedural drop in BP resulting in a reduction in medication
• 1 back pain treated with pain medications & resolved after one month
3. 6-month renal imaging (n=43, 37 Duplex echo, 5 MRI, 5 CT)
• No vascular abnormality at any RF treatment site
• progression of a pre-existing stenosis unrelated to RF treatment
4. 6-month renal function:
• No change
Symplicity HTN-2 Investigators. The Lancet. 2010.
Change in Office Blood Pressure over 36 months in a cohort study
-19-21 -22
-26 -26
-33 -33 -33
-9 -10 -10
-13 -12
-15 -14
-19
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
1 M (n=143)
3 M (n=148)
6 M (n=144)
12 M (n=130)
18 M (n=107)
24 M (n=59)
30 M (n=24)
36 M (n=24)
Systolic BP
Diastolic BP
BP
cha
nge
(mm
Hg)
P<0.01 for ∆ from BLfor all time points
Sobotka P. ACC 2012
Evolution of eGFR over 36 months
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
BL (N=143) 3 M (N=131) 6 M (N=141)12 M (N=128)18 M (N=53) 24 M (N=35) 30 M (N=11)
Caution: The Symplicity® Catheter System™ is an Investigational Device. Limited by U.S. law to investigational use. For OMA distribution only. © 2012 Medtronic, Inc. All rights reserved. 10047134DOC_1A 03/2012Sobotka P. ACC 2012
Critical appraisal of the results of the SIMPLICITY studies
Impact of non -blinded outcome assessors on estimated intervention effects in RCTs
Hróbjartsson A. BMJ 2012;344:e1119
Relationship between changes in 24h ambulatory SBP and office SBP in patients treated with AHT
Darusentan study
Symplicity HTN2
Mancia G. J Hypertens 2004; 22:435
A metaanalysis of 44 studies including 5842 patients
67%29%
BP lowering effects of SNB vs. SRASB in the PHARES study
BP control rates in RH patientsSNB strategy: 58%
SRASB strategy: 20%
Bobrie G et al J Hypertens. 2012; 30(8):1656
Mean difference in dABPSBP: 10 mmHg (95% CI, 7–14 mmHg)
DBP: 4 mmHg (95% CI, 2–7 mmHg)
Critical Assessment of the Simplicity HTN2 trial1. Internal validity
– Open label
– No ABPM to define resistant hypertension at baseline
– No work-up to exclude secondary hypertension
– No marker/index of primary success
– No assessment of adherence to AHT during the trial
– No standardized AHT (treatment scoring is difficult)
– No masked assessment of the primary endpoint (office BP)
2. List of possible biases– Expectation bias by both patients and doctors
– Performance bias (cointerventions, change in behavior…)
– Evaluation bias (office BP vs. ABPM)
Azizi M et al. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;43:293.
Critical appraisal of the renal effects
Change in eGFR from baseline to 6 weeks by quartile of change in SBP
Mann JE et al. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:1-10.
Renal denervation increases glomerular hyperfiltration in the obesity -induced
hypertension in dogs
Lohmeier TE.Hypertension 2012;59:331
RDN and the kidney: preliminary data in humans
• RDN decreases ultrasound renal resistive index with no change in
eGFR or UAER in patients with RH and baseline eGFR ≥ 45 ml/minMahfoud F et al. Hypertension 2012; 60:419
• RDN preserves renal perfusion in presence of reduced systemic BP:
– decreases renal vascular resistance without changing renal blood flow (MRI) or
GFR suggesting that autoregulation of renal perfusion is maintained
Ott C et al. cJASN 2013
• RDN does not change makers of acute kidney injury (NGAL, KIM-1)Dorr O et al. JACC 2013; 61:479
• RDN reduces safely office BP in pts with RH and stage 3-4 CKDHering D et al. JASN 2012; 23:1250
Long term safety
Vonend O et al. Lancet 2012; 380: 778Kaltenbach B et al. JACC 2012, Oct 24.
With the increasing use of RDN, such complication may
occur more often: Long term follow-up necessary
64 y women
During RDN procedure 6 months after RDN
External validity
Eligibility for RDN in real-life patients with RH referred to a tertiary hypertension unit during yea r 2011
• 1034 patients hospitalized in 2011
• 200 patients with RH (20%)
− 113 patients with secondary hypertension (57%)
− 87 patients with essential RH (43%)
• 15/1034 patients (1.5%) of all hospitalized patients
eligible for RDN
• 15/87 (17.2%) of patients with essential RH eligible for
RDN
Azizi M. et al. JACC 2012, Oct 25
Conclusions
• Catheter-based renal denervation in patients with treatment-resistant
essential hypertension, resulted in significant reductions in office BP,
much less marked when using ABPM.
• The technique was applied without major complications in the short
term.
• The technique needs still to be evaluated to :
– assess its efficacy against the best optimal care using predefined and validated
algorhythm of antihypertensive treatments
– Find out a method indicating the primary success of the denervation
– assess its long term safety
Symplicity HTN-2 Investigators. The Lancet. 2010.
The French DENER -HTN trial
1. Objective :
To assess efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the radiofrequency –based renal denervation (RD, Symplicity catheter,
Medtronic®) in 120 patients with proven resistant hypertension.
2. Methodology :
Multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel, superiority trial, comparing RD + standardized optimal antihypertensive treatment (SOAT) vs. SOAT alone with blind assessment of the primary endpoint (ABPM, PROBE design)
3. Total duration of the trial:
27 months (enrollment : 15 months, follow up : 12 months)
Azizi M. The DENERHTN study. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01570777