The Global SYMPLICITY Registry: Safety and Effectiveness of Renal Artery Denervation In Real World Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension

Similar documents
Byeong-Keuk Kim, MD, PhD. Division of Cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

SPYRAL HTN ON MED. Disclosure

Update on renal denervation: Latest data

Real World Experience with Renal Denervation Therapy

Catheter-Based Renal Denervation (RDN)

CATHETER-BASED RENAL DENERVATION INCREASES INSULIN SENSITIVITY AND IMPROVES GLUCOSE METABOLISM IN PATIENTS WITH RESISTANT HYPERTENSION

Radiofrequency Energy Provides Safe & Durable Blood Pressure Reduction: Complete 3 Year Results from Symplicity HTN-1

Renal Sympathetic Denervation for Treatment of Resistant Hypertension: 18-Month Results from the Symplicity HTN-2 Randomized Controlled Trial

Devices and Long-Term Outcomes of Renal Denervation for Hypertension

The Future of Renal Denervation

Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany

Renal Artery Denervation New Concepts in Hypertension Treatment

RISE, FALL AND RESURRECTION OF RENAL DENERVATION. Michael A. Weber, MD State University of New York Downstate College of Medicine

Disclosures for Dr. Bhatt

Preliminary Results of RETREAT

Relevance of sympathetic overactivity in hypertension and heart failure Therapeutic Implications

Catheter-Based Renal Sympathetic Denervation in the Management of Resistant Hypertension

Renal Denervation For Hypertension: Status Update

What We've Learned from Simplicity HTN-1,2, and Registries

EnligHTN I, First-in-Human Multicenter Study of a Multi-Electrode Renal Denervation Catheter in Patients with Drug-Resistant Hypertension

Treating Hypertension With a Catheter..Wait What? David P. Lee, M.D. 22 June 2013 Stanford University

Renal Denervation. by Walead Latif, DO, MBA, CPE Assistant Clinical Professor Rutgers Medical School

A.K. Gitt, F. Towae, C. Juenger, A. Papp, R. Zahn, U. Zeymer, J. Senges For the STAR-Study-Group Herzzentrum Ludwigshafen, Germany

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL MEDICINE WELCOMES

Disclosure of Relationships

noradrenaline spillover and systemic blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension

Stephen G. Worthley 1, Gerard T. Wilkins 2, Mark W. Webster 3,Joseph K. Montarello 1, Paul T. Antonis 4, Robert J. Whitbourn 5, Roderic J.

Hypertension Guidelines Michael A. Weber, MD Division of Cardiovascular Medicine State University of New York Downstate Medical Center

The RealiseAF registry:

Renal denervation: Current evidence and remaining uncertainties

Σύγτρονη θεραπεία της ανθεκτικής σπέρτασης

in patients with diabetes, nephropathy and/or chronic kidney disease Summary of recommendations July 2017

CIC-P Nancy. Disclosures

Treatment Of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone antagonist (TOPCAT) AHA Nov 18, 2014 Update on Randomized Trials

Clinical Policy Title: Renal denervation

JNC-8. (Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure- 8) An Update on Hypertension Guidelines

Renal Denervation for Resistant Hypertension

ADVANCES IN MANAGEMENT OF HYPERTENSION

ANTIPAF Angiotensin II Antagonist in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Trial

In their most recent 2013 guidelines, the European Society of

Aldosterone Antagonism in Heart Failure: Now for all Patients?

Catheter-Based Renal Denervation Reduces Total Body and Renal Noradrenaline Spillover and Blood Pressure in Resistant Hypertension

Thiazide or Thiazide Like? Choosing Wisely Academic Detailing Conference Digby Pines October 12-14

Dr Doris M. W Kinuthia

Jared Moore, MD, FACP

Renal Sympathetic Denervation Beyond Hypertension: Therapy for Arrhythmias and for Autonomic Nervous System Dysfunction?

ADVANCES IN MANAGEMENT OF HYPERTENSION

Percutaneous Renal Denervation: A New Promise in the Treatment of RHT?

When Conventional Heart Failure Therapy is not Enough: Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, Direct Renin Inhibitor or Aldosterone Antagonist?

Treating Hypertension With a Catheter..Wait What? COI 5/3/2013. Worldwide Prevalence of Hypertension Is Increasing

1 INTRODUCTION ORIGINAL PAPER

Management of Resistant Hypertension in Diabetes

How clinically important are the results of the large trials in hypertension?

Prevention of Heart Failure: What s New with Hypertension

Christian Daugaard Peters, MD, PhD Department of Renal Medicine Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark Disclosures: None

Evolving Concepts on Hypertension: Implications of Three Guidelines (JNC 8 Panel, ESH/ESC, NICE/BSH)

Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults

Combination therapy Giuseppe M.C. Rosano, MD, PhD, MSc, FESC, FHFA St George s Hospitals NHS Trust University of London

With an unrestricted educational grant from. The Interventional Treatment of Resistant Hypertension

Outcomes and Perspectives of Single-Pill Combination Therapy for the modern management of hypertension

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement. Objectives of the Presentation. Methods of Measuring BP: Pros and Cons

Catheter Based Denervation for Heart Failure

Renal Sympathetic Denervation for HTN

ΑΡΥΙΚΗ ΠΡΟΔΓΓΙΗ ΤΠΔΡΣΑΙΚΟΤ ΑΘΔΝΟΤ. Μ.Β.Παπαβαζιλείοσ Καρδιολόγος FESC - Γιεσθύνηρια ιζμανόγλειον ΓΝΑ Clinical Hypertension Specialist ESH

Should hypertensive disorders of pregnancy be considered as a prehypertension state?

Nurse-sensitive factors in hypertension management

MINNEAPOLIS September 12, 2012 Medtronic, Inc. (NYSE: MDT) today announced findings

Update on Current Trends in Hypertension Management

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. None to declare

Renal denervation for treatment of resistant hypertension

Difficult-to-Control & Resistant Hypertension. Anthony Viera, MD, MPH, FAHA Professor and Chair

JNC Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults

By Prof. Khaled El-Rabat

WPCCS May2013. Mr Ian Williams Consultant Vascular Surgeon UHW. Consultant Cardiologist UHW

Brent M. Egan, MD Professor of Medicine USCSOM Greenville

Cedars Sinai Diabetes. Michael A. Weber

Disclosures for Presenter

MANAGEMENT OF HYPERTENSION: TREATMENT THRESHOLDS AND MEDICATION SELECTION

5.2 Key priorities for implementation

Engage AF-TIMI 48. Edoxaban in AF: What can we expect? Cardiology Update John Camm. St. George s University of London United Kingdom

Slide notes: References:

Saudi Arabia February Pr Michel KOMAJDA. Université Pierre et Marie Curie Hospital Pitié Salpétrière

Renal Denervation: The Case for Cardiology

Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest

Hypertension Update Warwick Jaffe Interventional Cardiologist Ascot Hospital

Hypertension Management: A Moving Target

Renal fractional flow reserve and hypertension response after renal artery stenting

Evidence grades for the recommendations

nephropathy and/or chronic kidney disease Summary of recommendations

Hypertension Putting the Guidelines into Practice

DISCLOSURES OUTLINE OUTLINE 9/29/2014 ANTI-HYPERTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE

Hypertension Management Controversies in the Elderly Patient

Transcatheter Perivascular Alcohol- Mediated Renal Denervation

Apixaban versus Heparin/Vitamin K Antagonist in Anticoagulation-naïve Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Scheduled for Cardioversion: The EMANATE Trial

Renal sympathetic denervation as a potential treatment for hypertension

Guideline for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in adults

Preventing and Treating High Blood Pressure

Novel Anticoagulants : Bleeding and Bridging

Modern Management of Hypertension

Objectives. Describe results and implications of recent landmark hypertension trials

Transcription:

The Global SYMPLICITY Registry: Safety and Effectiveness of Renal Artery Denervation In Real World Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension Michael Böhm, MD on behalf of the GSR Investigators March 30, 2014 Universitätskliniken des Saarlandes, Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Homburg/Saar, Germany

Conflicts of Interest M. Böhm Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Federal State of the Saarland (Ministry of Science and Economy BMBF European Union 1. Study Support: Astra Zeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, St. Jude 2. Advisory Boards: Astra Zeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cordis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, 3. Speaker: Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, St. Jude

Global SYMPLICITY Registry Co-Chairs Prof. Michael Böhm; Prof. Giuseppe Mancia Executive Committee Prof. Bryan Williams; Prof. Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Prof. Luis Ruilope; Prof. Markus Schlaich Steering Committee Executive committee and Dr. Mostafa Adel Youssef; Dr. Ashok Seth r. Brett Egan; Dr. Dong-Ju Choi; Dr. Phillip L Allier Prof. Bert Andersson; Prof. Chaim Lotan; Prof. Iris Baumgartner; Prof. Massimo Volpe; Prof. Roland Schmieder; Prof. Thierry Lefevre; Prof. Uta Hoppe; Prof. Uwe Zeymer; Dr. Robaayah Zambahari Independent Clinical Events Committee Steven Marx, MD; Clive Rosendorff, MD, PhD, DsC Med, FRCP, FACC; Michele H. Mokrzycki, MD; Ladan Golestaneh, MD; Joel Neugarten, MD (Non-voting members: Roxana Mehran, MD and Sorin Brener, MD) Data Analysis Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, IHF, Ludwigshafen, Germany Sponsor Medtronic, Inc.

Background Sympathetic nervous system overdrive is implicated in many diseases RDN has been studied extensively in subjects with uncontrolled hypertension Published reports describe the clinical benefit of renal denervation in several comorbid conditions Safety and treatment effect in real life could differ

Primary: Safety Peri-procedural safety Long-term safety Vascular Renal Hemodynamic Secondary Patient characterization Effect on blood pressure Objectives Changes in baseline antihypertensive medication New Relationship of registry vs RCT (SYMPLICITY HTN-3)

Design and Rationale Prospective, open label, multi-center, international registry Up to 5000 real world patients with uncontrolled hypertension and some with conditions associated with sympathetic nervous system activation Key Inclusion: Older than 18 years Candidates for renal denervation as defined by local regulations for use of the Symplicity catheter. NCT01534299

Global SYMPLICITY Registry Current Activated Site Locations CA: 5 WE: 116 C&EEU: 10 Korea: 10 MEA: 11 LA: 6 ASEAN: 10 ANZ: 11

Global SYMPLICITY Registry Consecutive patients treated in real world population 5000 patients GREAT Registry N=1000 Korea Registry* N=102 South Africa Registry* N=400 Canada and Mexico* Rest of GSR N~3500 231 international sites in 37 countries Min. 10% randomly assigned to 100% monitoring Follow-up schedule 3M 6M 1Y 2Y 3Y 4Y 5Y * Limited to resistant hypertension only

Patient Disposition Baseline (N=1000 ) OBP: 982/1000 (98.2%) ABPM: 693/1000 (69.3%) 2 patients died 2 patients withdrew 3 Month Follow-up (N=996 in study) Safety: 965/998 (96.7%) OBP: 779/996 (78.2%) ABPM: 474/996 (47.6%) 2 patients died 2 patients withdrew 6 Month Follow-up (N=992 in study) Safety: 913/996 (91.7%) OBP: 760/992 (76.6%) ABPM: 487/992 (49.1%) Analysis on BP change performed on patients with matching baseline and FUP values

Baseline Patient Characteristics All Patients (N = 1000) SBP 160 mm Hg & Ambulatory SBP 135* mm Hg (N = 327) Gender, (% male) 61.2% 63.9% Age (years) 60.7 ± 12.0 61.0 ± 10.9 BMI (kg/m 2 ) 30.5 ± 5.5 30.9 ± 5.5 Current smoking 10.0% 11.0% History of cardiac disease 50.5% 52.9% Renal impairment 23.4% 27.9% (egfr <60 ml/min/1.73m 2 ) Sleep apnea (AHI 5) 4.2% 5.9% Diabetes, Type 1 3.2% 2.5% Diabetes, Type 2 38.5% 42.6% 1 co-morbidity 39.7% 36.7% 2 co-morbidities 35.5% 34.6% 3+ co-morbidities 24.6% 28.4% * With 3 antihypertensive medication classes

Antihypertensive Medication Use All Patients (N = 1000) SBP 160 mm Hg & Ambulatory SBP 135 mm Hg* (N = 327) Antihypertensive medication classes 4.5 ± 1.3 4.7 ± 1.2 Beta-blockers 78.9% 81.0% ACE inhibitors 33.8% 38.5% Angiotensin-receptor blockers 67.3% 67.9% Calcium channel blockers 76.3% 78.9% Diuretics 78.2% 79.8% Aldosterone antagonists 21.1% 19.3% Spironolactone 18.6% 15.9% Alpha adrenergic blockers 35.2% 40.1% Direct-acting vasodilators 15.1% 19.0% Centrally acting sympatholytics 33.2% 37.6% Direct renin inhibitor 7.4% 7.7% * With 3 antihypertensive medication classes

Procedural Detail # renal arteries 2.2 ± 0.5 Length 41.5 ± 13.1 mm Diameter left renal artery 5.6 ± 1.2 mm Diameter right renal artery 5.7 ± 1.2 mm Treatment time 50 min # bilateral ablations 13.5 ± 4.1 # 120 sec bilateral ablations 11.3 ± 3.4 Contrast volume used 127.6 ± 81.1 cc values are mean ± SD

Safety at 1 and 6 Months Cardiovascular events 1 Month n=967 6 Month n=913 Cardiovascular death 0.0% (0) 0.2% (2) Stroke 0.2% (2) 0.9% (8) Hospitalization for new onset heart failure 0.3% (3) 0.7% (6) Hospitalization for atrial fibrillation 0.1% (1) 0.9% (8) Hypertensive crisis/emergency 0.2% (2) 1.0% (9) Myocardial infarction 0.0% (0) 0.6% (5) Renal events New onset end stage renal disease 0.1% (1) 0.2% (2) Serum creatinine elevation > 50% 0.1% (1) 0.2% (2) New renal artery stenosis >70% 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Post-procedural events Non-cardiovascular death 0.0% (0) 0.2% (2) Renal artery re-intervention 0.1% (1) 0.2% (2) Vascular complication 0.4% (4) 0.4% (4)

Safety in HTN-3 and GSR HTN-3 RDN arm (N=364) GSR All Patients (N=1000) GSR OSBP 160 and ABPM 135* (N=327) MAE 1.4% 0.8% 1.3% At 6 month Death 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% New onset end stage renal disease 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% Significant embolic event resulting in end-organ damage 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Renal artery re-intervention 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% Vascular complication 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% Hypertensive crisis/emergency 2.6% 1.0% 1.7% New renal artery stenosis > 70% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% * With 3 antihypertensive medication classes

Change in Office Systolic BP for All Patients and Subgroups 20 All Patients* <140 mm Hg* 140-159 mm Hg 160 mm Hg* 15 10 12.9 14.2 5 0-5 -10-15 N=769 N=751 N=227 N=222 N=448 N=433 N=94 N=96-2.0-4.6-10.0-11.9 3 Mo 6 Mo -20-25 *P<0.0001 for both 3 and 6 month change from baseline P=0.14 at 3 months and P=0.0006 at 6 months -18.9-21.4

Change in Office SBP (mm Hg) Change in Office SBP at 6 Months for GSR and SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Patients 0 N=751 N=244 N=62-5 GSR All Pts -10-15 -11.9 GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) * GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) -20-20.2-17.3-25 *with 3 antihypertensive medication classes with 3 antihypertensive meds at maximum tolerated dose

Change in Office SBP (mm Hg) Change in Office SBP at 6 Months for GSR and SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Patients 0 N=751 N=244 N=62 N=353 N=171-5 GSR All Pts -10-15 -11.9-14.1-11.7 GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) * GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) HTN-3 RDN -20-20.2-17.3 HTN-3 Sham -25 *with 3 antihypertensive medication classes with 3 antihypertensive meds at maximum tolerated dose

Change in Mean 24-Hour SBP (mm Hg) 0 Change in Office SBP at 6 Months for GSR and Non-African American Patients in SYMPLICITY HTN-3 N=244 N=62 N=264 N=120-5 -10-8.6 GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) * GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) -15-20 -20.2-17.3-15.2 HTN-3 RDN non-african American HTN-3 Sham non-african American -25 *with 3 antihypertensive medication classes with 3 antihypertensive meds at maximum tolerated dose

Change in Ambulatory Systolic BP for All Patients and Subgroups All Patients* <140 mm Hg 140-159 mm Hg* 160 mm Hg* 0 N=401 N=404 N=55 N=67 N=139 N=130 N=199 N=203-2 -4-6 -8-6.9-7.9-6.3-6.9-6.6-7.9-7.1-8.2 3 Mo 6 Mo -10-12 *P<0.0001 for both 3 and 6 month change from baseline P=0.007 at 3 months and P=0.004 at 6 months

Change in Mean 24-Hour SBP (mm Hg) Change in Ambulatory SBP for GSR and SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Patients 0 N=404 N=176 N=52-2 GSR All Pts -4-6 -8-10 -12-7.9-9.1-10.3 GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) *with 3 antihypertensive medication classes with 3 antihypertensive meds at maximum tolerated dose *

Change in Mean 24-Hour SBP (mm Hg) Change in Ambulatory SBP for GSR and SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Patients 0 N=404 N=176 N=52 N=325 N=159-2 GSR All Pts -4-6 -4.8 GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) * GSR ( 160 office/ 135 ABPM) -8-10 -7.9-9.1-10.3-6.8 HTN-3 RDN HTN-3 Sham -12 *with 3 antihypertensive medication classes with 3 antihypertensive meds at maximum tolerated dose

Response rate Response Rates* for Patients with Office SBP 160 mm Hg / Ambulatory SBP 135 mm Hg at Baseline 100% 80% 60% 40% 43% 62% 69% 50% 68% 77% >20 mm Hg >10 mm Hg >5 mm Hg 20% 0% 3 months 6 months *Reduction in mean office SBP of at least 5, 10, or 20 mm Hg with 3 antihypertensive medication classes

% Patients Distribution of SBP in Patients With Office SBP 160 mm Hg and Ambulatory SBP 135 mm Hg* at Baseline 100% 75% 50% 25% >180mmHg 160 - <180 mm Hg 150 - <160 mm Hg 140- <150 mm Hg 110 - <140 mm Hg 90 - <110 mm Hg <90 mm Hg 0% Baseline 3 Months 6 Months *with 3 antihypertensive medication classes

Conclusions Excellent procedural and clinical safety profile in the largest dataset of real world RDN patients to date Significant reductions in both office and ambulatory BP from baseline Differences with SYMPLICITY HTN-3 include randomization, blinding, sham control, BP inclusion criteria, antihypertensive-drug treatment intensity, and African-American inclusion in HTN-3 Despite the limitations of comparing a registry with a randomized, blinded, controlled study, the reduction in blood pressure is numerically larger in the GSR at 6 months after treatment Due to the registry nature of the GSR, it is difficult to account for the magnitude of a possible placebo effect.

Future Research Define appropriate treatment populations Key subgroups Optimal BP inclusion criteria Interaction with drug treatments Time course Technical issues Operator experience Optimal training and proctoring

Thank you! M. Böhm Klinik für Innere Medizin III Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes Homburg/Saar, Germany Tel. 06841-16-23372 Fax. 06841-16-23369 michael.boehm@uks.eu