3.9 Article

An analysis of the blood pressure and safety outcomes to renal denervation in African Americans and Non-African Americans in the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages 769-779

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jash.2015.08.001

Keywords

Renal denervation; African American; uncontrolled apparent treatment-resistant hypertension

Funding

  1. Medtronic
  2. Amarin
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  5. Eisai
  6. Ethicon Endo-Surgery
  7. Forest Laboratories, Inc
  8. Ischemix
  9. Roche
  10. Sanofi
  11. The Medicines Company
  12. Edwards LifeSciences
  13. St. Jude Medical
  14. Abbott Vascular
  15. Boston Scientific
  16. Cordis (Johnson Johnson)
  17. Eli Lilly and Company
  18. Daiichi Sankyo
  19. Abiomed
  20. Direct Flow

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SYMPLICITY HTN-3, the first trial of renal denervation (RDN) versus sham, enrolled 26% African Americans, a prospectively stratified cohort. Although the 6-month systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction in African Americans (AAs) was similar in the RDN group (-15.5 +/- 25.4 mm Hg, n = 85 vs. -17.8 +/- 29.2, n = 49, P =.641), the sham SBP response was 9.2 mm Hg greater (P =.057) in AAs than non-AAs. In multivariate analyses, sham SBP response was predicted by an interaction between AA and a complex antihypertensive regimen (at least one antihypertensive medication prescribed >= 3 times daily), while in the RDN group, SBP response was predicted by an interaction between AA race and baseline BP >= 180 mm Hg. AA race did not independently predict SBP response in either sham or RDN. There appears to be effect modification by race with individual-level patient characteristics in both treatment aims that affect the observed pattern of SBP responses. (C) 2015 American Society of Hypertension. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available