Symplicity htn3 acc14

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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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.


Symplicity htn3 acc14

Health & Medicine

Transcript of Symplicity htn3 acc14