Background
Differences in the impact of contrast medium on the development of contrast‐induced acute kidney injury (CI‐AKI) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or a coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary intervention (CA/PCI) have not been previously investigated.
Methods and Results
Patients treated with TAVI or elective CA/PCI were retrospectively analyzed in terms of baseline and procedural characteristics, including preprocedural and postprocedural kidney function. CI‐AKI was defined as a relative increase in serum creatinine concentration of at least 0.3 mg/dL within 72 hours of contrast‐medium administration compared with baseline. The incidence of CI‐AKI in the TAVI versus CA/PCI group was compared. After the exclusion of patients in dialysis and emergency procedures, 977 patients were analyzed; there were 489 patients who had undergone TAVI (50.1%) and 488 patients who had undergone CA/PCI (49.9%). Patients treated by TAVI were older, presenting a higher rate of anemia and chronic kidney disease (
P
<0.001 for all comparisons). Consistently, they also had a significantly lower glomerular filtration rate and higher serum creatinine concentration (
P
<0.001 for all). However, the occurrence of CI‐AKI was significantly lower in these patients compared with patients treated by a CA/PCI (6.7% versus 14.5%,
P
<0.001). At multivariate analysis, the TAVI procedure had an independent protective effect on CI‐AKI incidence among total population (odds ratio, 0.334; 95% CI, 0.193–0.579;
P
<0.001). This observation was confirmed after propensity score matching among 360 patients (180 by TAVI and 180 by CA/PCI;
P
=0.002).
Conclusions
CI‐AKI occurred less frequently in patients undergoing TAVI than in patients undergoing a CA/PCI, despite a worse‐risk profile. The impact of contrast administration on kidney function in patients who had undergone TAVI may be better tolerated because of the hemodynamic changes following aortic valve replacement.
Aims
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of catheter-based radiofrequency renal sympathetic denervation (RSD) in a daily practice population of patients with uncontrolled resistant hypertension, on top of medical therapy.
Methods
Consecutive unselected patients with uncontrolled resistant hypertension undergoing RSD were enrolled. Office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements were collected at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after RSD. Efficacy was assessed even in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) below 45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients were defined as responders if systolic BP decreased by at least 5 mmHg at ambulatory BP or by 10 mmHg at office BP at their last follow-up visit.
Results
Forty patients with multiple comorbidities underwent RSD from 2012 to 2019. Baseline office and ambulatory BP was 159.0/84.9 ± 26.2/14.9 mmHg and 155.2/86.5 ± 20.9/14.0 mmHg, respectively. At 12-month follow up a significant reduction in office and ambulatory systolic BP, respectively by − 19.7 ± 27.1 mmHg and by − 13.9 ± 23.6 mmHg, was observed. BP reduction at 12-month follow-up among patients with eGFR < 45 mL/min was similar to that obtained in patients with higher eGFR. Twenty-nine patients (74.4%) were responders. Combined hypertension, higher ambulatory systolic BP and lower E/E’ at baseline emerged as predictors of successful RSD at univariate analysis. No major complications were observed and renal function (was stable up to 12 months), even in patients with the lowest eGFR values at baseline.
Conclusion
RSD is safe and feasible in patients with uncontrolled resistant hypertension on top of medical therapy, even in a high-risk CKD population with multiple comorbidities, with a significant reduction in systolic BP and a trend towards a reduction in diastolic BP lasting up to 12 months.
Graphic abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.