BackgroundIn a subpopulation of patients with essential hypertension, therapeutic targets are not met, despite the use of multiple types of medication. In this paper we describe our first experience with a novel percutaneous treatment modality using renal artery radiofrequency (RF) ablation.MethodsPatients who were resistant to at least three types of antihypertensive medical therapy (office systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 mmHg; n = 9) or who did not tolerate medication (n = 2) were selected. Between July and November 2010, a total of 11 patients received percutaneous RF treatment. Patients were followed up for 1 month after treatment. Urine and blood samples were taken to evaluate the effects on renal function and neurohumeral factors.ResultsNo periprocedural complications or adverse events during follow-up were noted. A reduction of mean office blood pressure was seen from 203/109 ± 32/19 mmHg at baseline to 178/97 ± 28/21 mmHg at 1 month follow-up (mean difference 25 ± 12 mmHg, p < 0.01). Also, we noted a significant decrease in aldosterone level (391 ± 210 pmol/L versus 250 ± 142 pmol/L; p = 0.03), while there was no decrease in plasma renin activity (190 ± 134 fmol/L/s versus 195 ± 163 fmol/L/s; p = 0.43). No change in renal function was noted.ConclusionCatheter-based renal denervation seems an attractive novel minimally invasive treatment option in patients with resistant hypertension, with a low risk of serious adverse events.

AimsThis study is the first to directly compare two widely used real-time 3D echocardiography (RT3DE) methods of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) and assess their reproducibility in experienced and less experienced observers.MethodsConsecutive patients planned for CMR underwent RT3DE within 8 h of CMR with Philips (volumetric method) and Toshiba Artida (speckle tracking method). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end-systolic volume (LVESV) were measured using RT3DE, by four trained observers, and compared with CMR values.ResultsThirty-five patients were included (49.7 ± 15.7 years; 55 % male), 30 (85.7 %) volumetric and 27 (77.1 %) speckle tracking datasets could be analysed. CMR derived LVEDV, LVESV and LVEF were 198 ± 58 ml, 106 ± 53 ml and 49 ± 15 %, respectively. LVEF derived from speckle tracking was accurate and reproducible in all observers (all intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) > 0.86). LVEF derived from the volumetric method correlated well to CMR in experienced observers (ICC 0.85 and 0.86) but only moderately in less experienced observers (ICC 0.58 and 0.77) and was less reproducible in these observers (ICC = 0.55). Volumes were significantly underestimated compared with CMR (p < 0.001).ConclusionThis study demonstrates that both RT3DE methodologies are sufficiently accurate and reproducible for use in daily practice. However, experience importantly influences the accuracy and reproducibility of the volumetric method, which should be considered when introducing this technique into clinical practice.

No abstract

stiffness and pulse wave velocity / Aorta and carotid arteries 137 (0.94 to 1.01) p = 0.096; Obesity OR = 0.47 (0.29 to 1.77) p = 0.003 and Diabetes OR = 2.41 (1.15 -5.05) p = 0.020. Conclusions: According to the results obtained, genetic polymorphisms variables were not in the multivariate analysis equation to determine the increase of the PWV, which can be explained either by being included in the selected variables such as hypertension, or on the other hand, they may not have enough strength to remain in the equation. So, according to this study, PWV has much more to do with behaviors and traditional risk factors than the genetic heritage.P883 Endothelial dysfunction, pulse wave velocity and augmentation index are correlated in subjects with systemic arterial hypertension?

At the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology, it is interesting to look back on the major scientific achievements in cardiovascular medicine of the last century and to pay attention to the impact of these achievements on Dutch Cardiology. It might be a nice opportunity not only to mention the ten great discoveries in Cardiology in the past century, but also to address the pioneering work in the Netherlands. When honouring and paying tribute to Dutch individuals, this special article only refers to emeriti-professors in cardiology (and some other closely-related retired experts), as this is a historical reflection rather than a cross-sectional view of current attainments. The practising pioneers of today will hopefully be remembered in 75 years from now. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:136-9.).