Advertisement

Great Myths of Blood Pressure Effect Size in Renal Denervation

  • James P. Howard
  • Matthew J. Shun-Shin
  • Darrel P. Francis
Chapter

Abstract

False.

Keywords

Blood Pressure Reduction Ambulatory Blood Pressure Blood Pressure Target Office Blood Pressure Renal Denervation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Howard JP, Nowbar AN, Francis DP. Size of blood pressure reduction from renal denervation: insights from meta-analysis of antihypertensive drug trials of 4,121 patients with focus on trial design: the CONVERGE report. Heart. 2013;99:1579–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Heart Association. Methodology manual and policies from the ACCF/AHA Task Force on practice guidelines. 2010;65.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansen TW, Jeppesen J, Rasmussen S, Ibsen H, Torp-Pedersen C. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population based study. Am J Hypertens. 2006;19:243–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verdecchia P, Reboldi G, Porcellati C, et al. Risk of cardiovascular disease in relation to achieved office and ambulatory blood pressure control in treated hypertensive subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:878–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R, Prospective Studies C. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet. 2002;360:1903–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Warren RE, Marshall T, Padfield PL, Chrubasik S. Variability of office, 24-hour ambulatory, and self-monitored blood pressure measurements. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60:675–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mancia G, Parati G. Office compared with ambulatory blood pressure in assessing response to antihypertensive treatment: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2004;22:435–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Brien E, Coats A, Owens P, et al. Use and interpretation of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: recommendations of the British hypertension society. BMJ. 2000;320:1128–34.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahfoud F, Ukena C, Schmieder RE, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure changes after renal sympathetic denervation in patients with resistant hypertension. Circulation. 2013;128:132–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simonetti G, Spinelli A, Gandini R, et al. Endovascular radiofrequency renal denervation in treating refractory arterial hypertension: a preliminary experience. Radiol Med. 2012;117:426–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deflating the hype: are we setting renal denervation up for disappointment? 2013. At http://www.massdevice.com/features/deflating-hype-are-we-setting-renal-denervation-disappointment.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ. 2009;338:b1665.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    St. Jude Medical EnligHTNment Study Highlighted at EuroPCR during trials that may change clinical practice session. 2013. At http://www.sjm.com/corporate/media-room/media-kits/new-products/~/media/SJM/corporate/Media%20Kits/EnligHTN/for_05212013/052113EnligHTNmentNewsReleaseFINAL.ashx.
  15. 15.
    Esler MD, Krum H, Schlaich M, et al. Renal sympathetic denervation for treatment of drug-resistant hypertension: one-year results from the Symplicity HTN-2 randomized, controlled trial. Circulation. 2012;126:2976–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Worthley SG, Tsioufis CP, Worthley MI, et al. Safety and efficacy of a multi-electrode renal sympathetic denervation system in resistant hypertension: the EnligHTN I trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2132–40.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • James P. Howard
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Shun-Shin
    • 1
  • Darrel P. Francis
    • 1
  1. 1.International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations