Original Title: Denervación simpática renal en el tratamiento de la hipertensión arterial resistente

Authors' objectives: The primary aim of this report is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of renal denervation compared to standard care for the treatment of resistant arterial hypertension; while the secondary objectives are: (a) to evaluate the effectiveness of renal denervation compared to standard care for the treatment of drug-resistant renal hypertension in terms of mortality, blood pressure control, quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, renal function, hospital admissions, and decreased drug treatment in the medium and long term; b) to evaluate the safety of renal denervation compared to standard care for the treatment of drug-resistant hypertension in terms of technique-specific complications and medium- and long-term adverse effects; c) to evaluate the degree of patient acceptability and satisfaction with renal denervation compared to standard care; and d) to evaluate the economic, organizational and structural impact associated with the implementation of renal denervation.

Authors' results and conclusions: From the results of the bibliographic search, the 28 articles that met the preset selection criteria were selected, corresponding to 11 clinical trials. In addition, 5 observational studies were selected to evaluate acceptability and patient satisfaction. The results obtained do not suggest that renal denervation significantly lowers blood pressure at 6 months. Depending on the type of comparator used (sham procedure, baseline antihypertensive medication or optimization of antihypertensive treatment), renal denervation decreases 7.70 mmHg (95%CI 13.11-2.29) systolic blood pressure and 4.03 mmHg (95%CI 7.56-0.49) diastolic blood pressure compared to baseline antihypertensive medication, but not compared to the other two comparators. Renal denervation does not appear to change the risk of left ventricular hypertrophy, plasma creatinine levels or glomerular filtration rate at 6 months after the intervention. Nor has a significant decrease in antihypertensive treatment been observed at 6 months compared with the sham procedure or antihypertensive treatment. In terms of safety, renal denervation did not appear to impact the risk of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, atrial fibrillation, antihypertensive crisis, or hypotensive episodes. Procedural adverse events were more common in the intervention group than in the control group (14.3% vs. 8.3%). Of the trials reporting mortality, 81.8% of deaths were reported in the intervention group vs. 18.2% in the control group. Regarding the results of acceptability and satisfaction with renal denervation, between 28.2% and 47.0% of hypertensive participants would accept undergoing renal denervation. It was observed that men and younger people showed a higher likelihood of accepting to undergo renal denervation. The results suggest that renal denervation does not appear to be superior in terms of effectiveness and safety compared with optimized antihypertensive treatment or a sham procedure at 6 months. The results suggest a beneficial effect of renal denervation compared with baseline antihypertensive treatment. Regarding medium/long-term effects, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude whether renal denervation is superior to its comparator. Future clinical trials on renal denervation need to have a long follow-up and sufficient sample sizes to evaluate these aspects in the long term, in addition to not offering renal denervation to subjects in the control group after 6 months from the start of the trial.

Authors' methods: A search of the scientific literature, since 2013 to January 2023, was carried out in the following databases: • Databases specialized in Systematic Reviews and Health Technology Assessment Reports, such as RedETS, BRISA, Epistemonikos, International HTA Database and the Cochrane Library. • General databases, such as Medline and Embase. Clinical trials were selected to assess effectiveness and safety, and observational and qualitative studies to assess acceptability and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers reviewed and selected the articles following previously established selection criteria. This information was synthesized in the evidence tables and a meta-analysis of the results was performed when possible.

Project Status: Completed

Year Published: 2024

URL for published report: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/18661

URL for additional information: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/18661

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Full HTA

Country: Spain

Organisation Name: Scientific Advice Unit, avalia-t; The Galician Health Knowledge Agency (ACIS)

Contact Address: Conselleria de Sanidade, Xunta de Galicia, San Lazaro s/n 15781 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Tel: 34 981 541831; Fax: 34 981 542854;

Contact Name: avalia-t@sergas.es

Contact Email: avalia-t@sergas.es

Copyright: <p>Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AVALIA-T)</p>