International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2021
Efficacy and safety of renal denervation for hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xia Mengdi, Liu Tong, Chen Dongming, Huang Ying
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) is a new treatment for hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but its efficacy is still debated. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RDN for hypertension in patients with CKD.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Ovid databases were searched for relevant studies published. We performed both fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses of the changes in blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) after RDN.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 238 patients from 11 single-center, non-randomized, uncontrolled studies. Office blood pressure and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (24 h-ABP) showed a significant reduction 1 month after RDN (p < 0.05). This decrease of 24 h-ABP persisted for 24 months after RDN showed difference systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.001). The 24 h-ABP exhibited a similar trend in the subgroup analysis. eGFR measurements obtained at each time point of analysis after RDN were not significantly different from those obtained before (p > 0.05). UACR levels were significantly reduced at 3 months and 6 months after RDN (p < 0.001). After RDN, the heart rate showed no significant changes (p > 0.05), and few major complications were encountered.
CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis showed that RDN may be effective and safe for treating CKD patients with hypertension. Well-designed randomized controlled trials of RDN are urgently needed to confirm the safety and reproducibility of RDN and to assess its impact on clinical outcomes.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Ovid databases were searched for relevant studies published. We performed both fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses of the changes in blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) after RDN.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 238 patients from 11 single-center, non-randomized, uncontrolled studies. Office blood pressure and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (24 h-ABP) showed a significant reduction 1 month after RDN (p < 0.05). This decrease of 24 h-ABP persisted for 24 months after RDN showed difference systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.001). The 24 h-ABP exhibited a similar trend in the subgroup analysis. eGFR measurements obtained at each time point of analysis after RDN were not significantly different from those obtained before (p > 0.05). UACR levels were significantly reduced at 3 months and 6 months after RDN (p < 0.001). After RDN, the heart rate showed no significant changes (p > 0.05), and few major complications were encountered.
CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis showed that RDN may be effective and safe for treating CKD patients with hypertension. Well-designed randomized controlled trials of RDN are urgently needed to confirm the safety and reproducibility of RDN and to assess its impact on clinical outcomes.