↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Renal denervation for resistant hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

6 tweeters
2 Facebook pages


35 Dimensions

Readers on

190 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Renal denervation for resistant hypertension
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011499.pub2
Pubmed ID

Giuseppe Coppolino, Anna Pisano, Laura Rivoli, Davide Bolignano


Resistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications, or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been recently proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition. We sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile, and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure. We searched the following databases to 17 February 2016 using relevant search terms: the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study risks of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We found 12 eligible studies (1149 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; one study compared a proximal ablation to a complete renal artery denervation; in the remaining, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy.None of the included trials was designed to look at hard clinical end points as primary outcomes.When compared to control, there was low quality evidence that renal denervation did not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (4 studies, 823 participants; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.72), or unstable angina (2 studies, 201 participants; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.06), and moderate quality evidence that it had no effect on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (5 studies, 797 participants; MD 0.28 mmHg, 95% CI -3.74 to 4.29), diastolic BP (4 studies, 756 participants; MD 0.93 mmHg, 95% CI -4.50 to 6.36), office measured systolic BP (6 studies, 886 participants; MD -4.08 mmHg, 95% CI -15.26 to 7.11), or diastolic BP (5 studies, 845 participants; MD -1.30 mmHg, 95% CI -7.30 to 4.69). Furthermore, low quality evidence suggested that this procedure produced no effect on either serum creatinine (3 studies, 736 participants, MD 0.01 mg/dL; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.14), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or creatinine clearance (4 studies, 837 participants; MD -2.09 mL/min, 95% CI -8.12 to 3.95). Based on low-quality evidence, renal denervation significantly increased bradycardia episodes compared to control (3 studies, 220 participants; RR 6.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 36.84), while the risk of other adverse events was comparable or not assessable.Data were sparse or absent for all cause mortality, hospitalisation, fatal cardiovascular events, quality of life, atrial fibrillation episodes, left ventricular hypertrophy, sleep apnoea severity, need for renal replacement therapy, and metabolic profile.The quality of the evidence was low for cardiovascular outcomes and adverse events and moderate for lack of effect on blood pressure and renal function. In patients with resistant hypertension, there is low quality evidence that renal denervation does not change major cardiovascular events, and renal function. There was moderate quality evidence that it does not change blood pressure and and low quality evidence that it caused an increaseof bradycardia episodes. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardized procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 190 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 19%
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 53 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Psychology 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 54 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,474,261 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 261,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,474,261 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 261,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.