Renal Sympathetic Denervation as Upstream Therapy During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Pilot HFIB Studies and Meta-Analysis
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
33478702
DOI
10.1016/j.jacep.2020.08.013
PII: S2405-500X(20)30736-2
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation, hypertension, meta-analysis, pulmonary vein isolation, renal denervation,
- MeSH
- Atrial Fibrillation * surgery MeSH
- Catheter Ablation * MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Pilot Projects MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic MeSH
- Recurrence MeSH
- Sympathectomy MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Meta-Analysis MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the impact of adjunctive renal sympathetic denervation to catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and history of hypertension. BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the impact of upstream adjunctive renal sympathetic denervation (RSDN) to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension. METHODS: The data for this study were obtained from 2 prospective randomized pilot studies, the HFIB (Adjunctive Renal Denervation to Modify Hypertension and Sympathetic tone as Upstream Therapy in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation)-1 (n = 30) and HFIB (Adjunctive Renal Denervation to Modify Hypertension and Sympathetic tone as Upstream Therapy in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation)-2 (n = 50) studies, and we performed a meta-analysis including all published studies comparing RSDN+PVI versus PVI alone up to January 25, 2020, in patients with AF and hypertension. RESULTS: At 24 months, AF recurrence occurred in 53% and 38% in the PVI and PVI+RSDN groups (p = 0.43) in the HFIB-1 study, respectively, and 27% and 25% in the PVI and PVI+RSDN groups (p = 0.80) in the HFIB-2 study, respectively. When combined in a meta-analysis including 6 studies (n = 725), adjunctive RSDN significantly decreased the risk of AF recurrence (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55 to 0.83; p = 0.0002; I2 = 0%) when compared with PVI. Six renal artery complications occurred in the HFIB-1 study and none occurred in the HFIB-2 study with RSDN. However, in the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in overall complications between both groups (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 0.63 to 3.22; p = 0.40; I2 = 7%). When compared with baseline, RDSN significantly reduced the systolic blood pressure (-12.1 mm Hg; 95% CI: -20.9 to -3.3 mm Hg; p < 0.007; I2 = 99%) and diastolic blood pressure (-5.60 mm Hg; 95% CI: -10.05 to -1.10 mm Hg; p = 0.01; I2 = 98%) on follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot HFIB-1 and HFIB-2 studies did not demonstrate a benefit with RSDN as an adjunctive upstream therapy during PVI. However, in the meta-analysis, adjunctive RSDN to PVI appears to be safe, and improves clinical outcomes in AF patients with a history of hypertension.
Homolka Hospital Prague Czech Republic
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York New York USA
Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation Kansas City Kansas USA
Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA
Mercy General Hospital and Dignity Health Heart and Vascular Institute Sacramento California USA
Trident Health System Charleston South Carolina USA
Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute Nashville Tennessee USA
References provided by Crossref.org