4.5 Article

Renal sympathetic denervation restores aortic distensibility in patients with resistant hypertension: data from a multi-center trial

期刊

CLINICAL RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY
卷 107, 期 8, 页码 642-652

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-018-1229-z

关键词

Renal denervation; Aortic distensibility; Compliance; Vascular stiffness; Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; CMR; Resistant hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) is under investigation as a treatment option in patients with resistant hypertension (RH). Determinants of arterial compliance may, however, help to predict the BP response to therapy. Aortic distensibility (AD) is a well-established parameter of aortic stiffness and can reliably be obtained by CMR. This analysis sought to investigate the effects of RDN on AD and to assess the predictive value of pre-treatment AD for BP changes. We analyzed data of 65 patients with RH included in a multicenter trial. RDN was performed in all participants. A standardized CMR protocol was utilized at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. AD was determined as the change in cross-sectional aortic area per unit change in BP. Office BP decreased significantly from 173/92 +/- 24/16 mmHg at baseline to 151/85 +/- 24/17 mmHg (p < 0.001) 6 months after RDN. Maximum aortic areas increased from 604.7 +/- 157.7 to 621.1 +/- 157.3 mm(2) (p = 0.011). AD improved significantly by 33% from 1.52 +/- 0.82 to 2.02 +/- 0.93 x 10(-3) mmHg(-1) (p < 0.001). Increase of AD at follow-up was significantly more pronounced in younger patients (p = 0.005) and responders to RDN (p = 0.002). Patients with high-baseline AD were significantly younger (61.4 +/- 10.1 vs. 67.1 +/- 8.4 years, p = 0.022). However, there was no significant correlation of baseline AD to response to RDN. AD is improved after RDN across all age groups. Importantly, these improvements appear to be unrelated to observed BP changes, suggesting that RDN may have direct effects on the central vasculature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据