4.4 Article

Renal denervation for improving outcomes of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and hypertension: Early experience

Journal

HEART RHYTHM
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages 1131-1138

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.03.055

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation; Ablation; Renal denervation; Resistant hypertension

Funding

  1. Medtronic
  2. Boston Scientific
  3. Biosense-Webster

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND The potential role of renal denervation (RD) in patients with AF and less severe hypertension is unknown. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess the potential role of RD as an adjunct to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and moderate resistant or severe resistant hypertension. METHODS The data for this study were obtained from 2 different prospective randomized studies, analyzed by meta-analysis. Patients with paroxysmal AF or persistent AF and moderate resistant hypertension (office blood pressure BP >= 140/90 mm Hg and <160/100 mm Hg; first study; n = 48) or severe resistant hypertension (>= 160/100 mm Hg; second study; n = 38) were randomized to PVI or PVI with RD. RESULTS At 12 months, 26 of the 41 PVI with RD patients (63%) were AF-free vs 16 of the 39 patients (41%) in the PVI-only group (P = .014). In patients with severe hypertension, 11 of the 18 PVI with RD patients (61%) vs 5 of the 18 PVI-only patients (28%) were AF-free (P = .03). For moderate hypertension, the differences were less dramatic: 11 of 21 (52%) vs 15 of 23 (65%) when RD added (P = .19). The superior efficacy of adding RD was most apparent in persistent AF and severe hypertension (hazard ratio 0.25, confidence interval 0.09-0.72, P = .01). Duration of the procedure and fluoroscopy were nonsignificantly longer in the RD group. CONCLUSION RD may improve the results of PVI in patients with persistent AF and/or severe resistant hypertension.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available