symplicity htn3 acc14
Post on 01-Nov-2014
280 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Renal Denervation in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension: Results
of the SYMPLICITY HTN 3 Trial
Deepak L. Bhatt, M.D., M.P.H., David E. Kandzari, M.D., William W. O’Neill, M.D., Ralph D'Agostino, Ph.D., John M. Flack,
M.D., M.P.H., Barry T. Katzen, M.D., Martin B. Leon, M.D., Minglei Liu, Ph.D.,
Laura Mauri, M.D., M.Sc., Manuela Negoita, M.D., Sidney A. Cohen, M.D., Ph.D., Suzanne Oparil, M.D., Krishna
Rocha-Singh, M.D., Raymond R. Townsend, M.D., George L. Bakris, M.D., for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Investigators
Trial Objectives
• SYMPLICITY HTN-3 is the first prospective, multi-center, randomized, blinded, sham controlled study to evaluate both the safety and efficacy of percutaneous renal artery denervation in patients with severe treatment-resistant hypertension.
• The trial included 535 patients enrolled by 88 participating US centers.
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Mount SinaiNew York, NY
WeillNew York, NY
LangoneNew York, NY
Columbia UniversityNew York, NY
Participating Sites
Cedars-Sinai Los Angeles, CA
ProvidenceSpokane, WA
MethodistHouston, TX
BaylorDallas, TX
Aurora St. LukesMilwaukee, WI
U of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI
HarperDetroit, MI
RiversideMethodist
Columbus, OH
U of PittPittsburg, PA
UH CaseCleveland, OH
U of MarylandBaltimore, MD
GeisingerDanville, PA
VanderbiltNashville, TN
PiedmontAtlanta, GA
U of MiamiMiami, FL
Baptist Hospital Miami, FL
DukeDurham, NC
Morristown Memorial
Morristown, NJ
MontefioreBronx, NY
SUNYBrooklyn, NY
U of ConnecticutFarmington, CT
Brigham & Women’s Boston, MA
Memorial Hermann Houston, TX
Ohio StateColumbus, OH
Emory Atlanta, GA
Kaiser PermanenteLos Angeles, CA
WashingtonHospital Center
Washington, DC
Stanford Palo Alto, CA
Dallas VA Dallas, TX
U of TexasDallas, TX
Howard University Washington, DC
George WashingtonUniversity
Washington, DC
Cleveland ClinicCleveland, OH
Jersey ShoreNeptune, NJ
Shands at UFGainesville, FL
VirginiaCommonweath U
Richmond, VA
St. JosephMercy
Ypsilanti, MI
NorthwesternMemorialChicago, IL
Baylor HeartPlano, TX
U of AlabamaBirmingham, AL
Lancaster GeneralLancaster, PA
Scott & WhiteTemple, TX
Mayo ClinicJacksonville, FL
Tampa GeneralTampa, FL
MetroHealthCleveland, OH
St. JosephOrange, CA
ScrippsLa Jolla, CA
SharpSan Diego, CA
Heart HospitalAustin, TX
Christ HospitalCincinnati, OH
OchsnerNew Orleans, LA
U of KentuckyLexington, KY
Carolinas MedicalCharlotte, NC
U of ColoradoAurora, CO
Fletcher AllenSouth Burlington, VT
Barnes JewishSt. Louis, MO
Forrest GeneralHattiesburg, MS
Abbott NorthwesternMinneapolis, MN
Wheaton FranciscanRacine, WI
St. FrancisRoslyn, NY
Stony Brook UStony Brook, NY
Lahey ClinicBurlington, MA
U of MassWorcester, MA
ProvidenceSouthfield, MI
Mercy MedicalWest Des Moines, IA
St. John’sSpringfield, IL
MIdwestHeart
Oakbrook Terrace, IL
St. Mary’sRochester, MN
St. Luke’sKansas City, MO
St. JosephMercy Oakland
Pontiac, MI
VA BostonWest Roxbury, MA
U of PennPhiladelphia, PA
Thomas Jefferson UPhiladelphia, PA
DeborahHeart & LungBrown Mills, NJ
Memorial Hospital
Chatanooga, TN
Princeton Baptist Medical
Birmingham, AL
LankenauWynnewood, PA
Baptist Memorial
Germantown, TN
Medical USCCharleston, SC
Wake ForestWinston-Salem, NC
UNC MemorialChapel Hill, NC
Rhode Island Providence, RI
U of VirginiaCharlottesville, VA
U of Chicago Medical CtrChicago, IL
Key Inclusion Criteria
• Age ≥18 and ≤80 years at time of randomization
• Stable medication regimen including full tolerated doses of 3 or more antihypertensive medications of different classes, including a diuretic (with no changes for a minimum of 2 weeks prior to screening) and no expected changes for at least 6 months
• Office SBP ≥160 mm Hg based on an average of 3 blood pressure readings measured at both an initial and a confirmatory screening visit
• Written informed consent
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Key Exclusion Criteria
• ABPM 24 hour average SBP <135 mm Hg
• eGFR of <45 mL/min/1.73 m2
• Main renal arteries <4 mm diameter or <20 mm treatable length
• Multiple renal arteries where the main renal artery is estimated to supply <75% of the kidney
• Renal artery stenosis >50% or aneurysm in either renal artery
• History of prior renal artery intervention
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Trial Design
• Office SBP ≥160 mm Hg
• Full doses ≥3 meds
• No med changes in past 2 weeks
• No planned med changes for 6 M
Home BP &HTN med
confirmation
• Office SBP ≥160 mm Hg
• 24-h ABPM SBP ≥135 mm Hg
• Documented med adherence
Screening Visit 1 Screening Visit 2
Renal angiogram;
Eligible subjects
randomized
Home BP &HTN med
confirmation
Home BP &HTN med
confirmation
Primary endpoint
2 weeks
2 weeks
Sham Procedure
Renal Denervation
1 M
1 M 3 M
3 M 6 M
6 M 12-60 M
• Patients, BP assessors, and study personnel all blinded to treatment status
• No changes in medications for 6 M
2 weeks
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Efficacy Endpoints
Primary Effectiveness Endpoint:• Comparison of office SBP change from baseline to 6 months
in RDN arm compared with change from baseline to 6 months in control arm
Endpoint = (SBPRDN 6 month – SBPRDN Baseline) – (SBPCTL 6 month – SBPCTL Baseline)
• Superiority margin of 5 mm Hg
Powered Secondary Effectiveness Endpoint:• Comparison of mean 24-hour ambulatory (ABPM) SBP
change from baseline to 6 months in RDN arm compared with change from baseline to 6 months in control arm
• Superiority margin of 2 mm Hg
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Patient Disposition
1441 subjects assessed for eligibility
Excluded:• 880 not eligible for randomization• 26 eligible but not randomized because
randomization cap was reached
535 subjects randomized
364 subjects randomly allocated to renal
denervation
171 subjects randomly allocated to sham
control
350 (96.2%) subjects with6 month follow-up
169 (98.8%) subjects with 6 month follow-up
• 1 subject died• 1 missed 6-month visit
• 2 subjects died• 1 subject withdrew • 11 missed 6-month
visit
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Results: Population Demographics
Characteristicmean ± SD or %
Renal Denervation(N=364)
Sham Procedure(N=171 ) P
Age (years) 57.9 ± 10.4 56.2 ± 11.2 0.09
Male sex (%) 59.1 64.3 0.26
Office systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 180±16 180±17 0.77
24 hour mean systolic ABPM (mm Hg) 159±13 160±15 0.83
BMI (kg/m2) 34.2 ± 6.5 33.9 ±6.4 0.56Race* (%) 0.57
African American 24.8 29.2 White 73.0 69.6 Medical history (%)
Renal insufficiency (eGFR<60 ml/min/1.73m2) 9.3 9.9 0.88
Renal artery stenosis 1.4 2.3 0.48Obstructive sleep apnea 25.8 31.6 0.18
Stroke 8.0 11.1 0.26
Type 2 diabetes 47.0 40.9 0.19
Hospitalization for hypertensive crisis 22.8 22.2 0.91
Hyperlipidemia 69.2 64.9 0.32
Current smoking 9.9 12.3 0.45
*Race also includes Asian, Native American, or other Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Baseline Hypertensive Therapy
Characteristicmean ± SD or %
Renal Denervation(N=364)
Sham Procedure(N=171 )
No. of antihypertensive medications 5.1 ± 1.4 5.2 ± 1.4 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors % at max tolerated dose
49.245.9
41.537.4
Angiotensin receptor blockers % at max tolerated dose
50.049.5
53.251.5
Aldosterone antagonists 22.5 28.7 Alpha-adrenergic blockers 11.0 13.5 Beta blockers 85.2 86.0 Calcium channel blockers % at max tolerated dose
69.857.1
73.163.7
Centrally-acting sympatholytics 49.2 43.9 Diuretics % at max tolerated dose
99.796.4
10097.7
Direct renin inhibitors 7.1 7.0 Direct-acting vasodilators 36.8 45.0
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Blinding Efficacy
Time Blinding Index* 95% CI
Discharge 0.68 (0.64, 0.72)
6 Months 0.77 (0.74, 0.81)
*The lower boundaries of the confidence intervals of the blinding index are both > 0.5, indicating sufficient evidence of blinding.
Blinding Procedure:• All patients underwent renal angiography• Conscious sedation• Sensory isolation (e.g., blindfold and music)• Lack of familiarity with procedural details and expected
duration• Assessed by questionnaire at discharge and 6 months
(before unblinding)
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Safety Event Rate
Safety Measures (%) Renal Denervation
(N=364)
Sham Procedure
(N=171)
Difference(95% CI) P
Major Adverse Events 1.4 0.6 0.8 (-0.9, 2.5) 0.67To 6 Months 6-Month Composite Safety 4.0 5.8 -1.9 (-6.0, 2.2) 0.37
Death 0.6 0.6 0.0 (-1.4, 1.4) 1.00 Myocardial infarction 1.7 1.8 0.0 (-2.4, 2.3) 1.00 New onset ESRD 0 0 - -Serum creatinine elevation >50% 1.4 0.6 0.8 (-0.8, 2.5) 0.67 Embolic event resulting in end-organ
damage 0.3 0 0.3 (-0.3, 0.8) 1.00
Renal artery intervention 0 0 - -Vascular complication requiring treatment 0.3 0 0.3 (-0.3, 0.8) 1.00 Hypertensive crisis/emergency 2.6 5.3 -2.7 (-6.4, 1.0) 0.13 Stroke 1.1 1.2 0.0 (-2.0, 1.9) 1.00 Hospitalization for new onset heart failure 2.6 1.8 0.8 (-1.8, 3.4) 0.76 Hospitalization for atrial fibrillation 1.4 0.6 0.8 (-0.8, 2.5) 0.67 New renal artery stenosis >70% 0.3 0 0.3 (-0.3, 0.9) 1.00
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Primary Efficacy Endpoint
Δ = -14.1±23.9
P<0.001
Δ = -11.7±25.9
P<0.001
Δ = -2.39 (95% CI, -6.89 to 2.12)
P=0.26*
(N=364) (N=171)
Offi
ce S
BP
(m
m H
g)
(N=353) (N=171)
180 mm Hg
166 mm Hg
180 mm Hg
168 mm Hg
*P value for superiority with a 5 mm Hg margin; bars denote standard deviations Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Powered Secondary Efficacy Endpoint
Δ = -6.8±15.1
P<0.001
Δ = -4.8±17.3
P<0.001
Δ = -1.96 (95% CI, -4.97 to 1.06)
P=0.98*
(N=360) (N=167)
24-
ho
ur
me
an s
ysto
lic
AB
PM
(m
m H
g)
(N=329) (N=162)
159 mm Hg152 mm Hg
160 mm Hg154 mm Hg
*P value for superiority with a 2 mm Hg margin; bars denote standard deviations Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Change in Office SBP by Tertileof Baseline Office SBP
∆ O
ffice
SB
P (
mm
Hg
)
<170 mm Hg 170 – 184 mm Hg >184 mm Hg
-6.6
-25.7
-13.8
-4.5
-9.8
-19.7
P=0.57
P=0.13
P=0.29
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Results: Prespecified Subgroup Analyses
*
* P value for superiority with margin of 5 mm Hg Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Conclusions
• In a prospective, multicenter, randomized, blinded, sham controlled trial of patients with uncontrolled resistant hypertension, percutaneous renal denervation was safe but not associated with significant additional reductions in office or ambulatory blood pressure.
• These results underscore the importance of blinding and sham controls in evaluations of new devices.
• Further study in rigorously designed clinical trials will be necessary to confirm previously reported benefits of renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension or to validate alternate methods of renal denervation.
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al...Bakris GL. N Engl J Med 2014
top related