Background Prior unblinded studies have suggested that catheter-based renal-artery denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension. Methods We designed a prospective, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Patients with severe resistant hypertension were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo renal denervation or a sham procedure. Before randomization, patients were receiving a stable antihypertensive regimen involving maximally tolerated doses of at least three drugs, including a diuretic. The primary efficacy end point was the change in office systolic blood pressure at 6 months; a secondary efficacy end point was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, end-stage renal disease, embolic events resulting in end-organ damage, renovascular complications, or hypertensive crisis at 1 month or new renal-artery stenosis of more than 70% at 6 months. Results A total of 535 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) change in systolic blood pressure at 6 months was −14.13±23.93 mm Hg in the denervation group as compared with −11.74±25.94 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group (P<0.001 for both comparisons of the change from baseline), for a difference of −2.39 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], −6.89 to 2.12; P = 0.26 for superiority with a margin of 5 mm Hg). The change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was −6.75±15.11 mm Hg in the denervation group and −4.79±17.25 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group, for a difference of −1.96 mm Hg (95% CI, −4.97 to 1.06; P = 0.98 for superiority with a margin of 2 mm Hg). There were no significant differences in safety between the two groups. Conclusions This blinded trial did not show a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension 6 months after renal-artery denervation as compared with a sham control. (Funded by Medtronic; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01418261.

No abstract

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as above-goal elevated blood pressure (BP) in a patient despite the concurrent use of 3 antihypertensive drug classes, commonly including a long-acting calcium channel blocker, a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a diuretic. The antihypertensive drugs should be administered at maximum or maximally tolerated daily doses. RH also includes patients whose BP achieves target values on ≥4 antihypertensive medications. The diagnosis of RH requires assurance of antihypertensive medication adherence and exclusion of the “white-coat effect” (office BP above goal but out-of-office BP at or below target). The importance of RH is underscored by the associated risk of adverse outcomes compared with non-RH. This article is an updated American Heart Association scientific statement on the detection, evaluation, and management of RH. Once antihypertensive medication adherence is confirmed and out-of-office BP recordings exclude a white-coat effect, evaluation includes identification of contributing lifestyle issues, detection of drugs interfering with antihypertensive medication effectiveness, screening for secondary hypertension, and assessment of target organ damage. Management of RH includes maximization of lifestyle interventions, use of long-acting thiazide-like diuretics (chlorthalidone or indapamide), addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (spironolactone or eplerenone), and, if BP remains elevated, stepwise addition of antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to lower BP. If BP remains uncontrolled, referral to a hypertension specialist is advised.

These guidelines have been written to provide a straightforward approach to managing hypertension in the community. We have intended that this brief curriculum and set of recommendations be useful not only for primary care physicians and medical students, but for all professionals who work as hands-on practitioners.We are aware that there is a great variability in access to medical care among communities. Even in so-called wealthy countries, there are sizable communities in which economic, logistic, and geographic issues put constraints on medical care. And, at the same time, we are been reminded that even in countries with highly limited resources, medical leaders have assigned the highest priority to supporting their colleagues in confronting the growing toll of devastating strokes, cardiovascular events, and kidney failure caused by hypertension.Our goal has been to give sufficient information to enable healthcare practitioners, wherever they are located, to provide professional care for people with hypertension. All the same, we recognize that it will often not be possible to carry out all of our suggestions for clinical evaluation, tests, and therapies. Indeed, there are situations in which the most simple and empirical care for hypertensionsimply distributing whatever antihypertensive drugs might be available to people with high blood pressure -is better than doing nothing at all. We hope that we have allowed sufficient flexibility in this statement to enable responsible clinicians to devise workable plans for providing the best possible care of hypertension in their communities.We have divided this brief document into the following sections:1. General introduction 2. Epidemiology 3. Special issues with black patients (African ancestry) 4. How is hypertension defined? 5. How is hypertension classified? 6. Causes of hypertension 7. Making the diagnosis of hypertension 8. Evaluating the patient 9. Physical examination 10. Tests