Renal denervation: a glimpse of hope?
Neth Heart J
Renal denervation: a glimpse of hope?
M. Voskuil 0
0 Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht , The Netherlands
The development of the treatment modality using renal
denervation with radiofrequency energy endured many ups
and downs [
]. After encouraging results in the initial
studies, a pronounced variability in blood pressure responses
of individual patients was noted in clinical practice. Trying
to unravel this observed variability, several technical
shortcomings, in addition to the issue of selecting the
appropriate patient population, were distinguished. For example,
the induced lesions had a restricted distribution and
limited penetration depth, leaving a large part of the nerves
in the perivascular areas distant from the vascular lumen
]. This may be due to the increased intima
and media thickness in these hypertensive patients.
Furthermore, the initial advice to perform ablations primarily
in the main renal artery, leaving the distal segments and
side branches untreated, may not have been good advice,
in hindsight. Increased interest in the anatomy of
sympathetic renal innervation has led to several novel insights
]. For example, there is a high interpatient variability
in the anatomy of these nerves. However, in general, the
density of renal sympathetic nerves is higher and the
location of these nerves more superficial in the distal segments.
Also, in renal arteries with larger diameters and thicker
vessel parenchyma, the innervation is found further from the
lumen and the nerves increase in thickness. These findings
suggest that the ablation lesions might have been
insufficient with respect to location, depth and, most likely, also
in number, in many cases in the initially performed
The concept of performing a redo procedure in patients
who are non-responders to the initial treatment strategy
seems reasonable in the light of the above-mentioned
limitations. In their manuscript in this issue of The Netherlands
Heart Journal, Daemen et al. describe a case series of three
consecutive non-responders who underwent a
repeat-procedure with a second-generation multi-electrode
radiofrequency catheter [
]. The procedure was performed after an
average of 22 months following first treatment. These
patients showed a decrease in office-based and ambulatory
blood pressure of –27/–6 mm Hg and –15/–13 mm Hg,
respectively, after this second treatment. Notably, no
arterial damage was observed after a follow-up of six months.
Therefore, Daemen et al. conclude that a redo procedure
using this second-generation system, and with new insights
in mind, seems safe and might be of additional value in
these difficult-to-treat patients.
Although the idea of performing a redo procedure in this
situation is appealing, the results of this study must be
considered with caution. First, the manuscript describes a
limited experience in only three patients. Second, the catheters
that were used during the index procedure were
second-generation devices, compared to the Symplicity Flex system in
the initial era of renal denervation. Initially, the patients
did not respond to treatment with either a multi-electrode
system (Vessix V2) or a circumferential ablation technique
(Paradise and OneShot system). With regard to some of
these technical aspects, the EnligHTN system appears to be
similar to the systems that were used in the first procedure.
Third, the patients were ablated only in the proximal
segment of the renal arteries, as described by the authors, in
both the first and the second procedure. This is theoretically
one of the disadvantages of the EnligHTN system; it is too
bulky to enter smaller sized distal or side branches.
Remarkably, the patients still responded better to the second
ication use, will be pivotal. If this study (and several others
running right now) does not show positive results over the
coming 12 months, a definite loss of belief in this treatment
modality is difficult to avoid.
In conclusion, the paper by Daemen et al. is hopeful, but
as Aristotle already stated long ago: ‘One swallow (or in
this case, three) does not make a summer’ [
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
1. Voskuil M. Renal denervation: Are we at a crossroads? Neth Heart J. 2016 ; 24 : 447 - 8 .
2. Vink EE , Goldschmeding R , Vink A , et al. Limited destruction of renal nerves after catheter-based renal denervation: results of a human case study . Nephrol Dial Transplant . 2014 ; 29 : 1608 - 10 .
3. Sakakura K , Ladich E , Cheng Q , et al. Anatomic assessment of sympathetic peri-arterial renal nerves in man . J Am Coll Cardiol . 2014 ; 64 : 635 - 43 .
4. Daemen J , Feyz L , Van Zandvoort L , Van Mieghem NM . Redo renal denervation using a multi-electrode radiofrequency system in patients with persistent therapy-resistant hypertension . Neth Heart J . 2017 ; doi:10.1007/s12471-017-0986-z.
5. De Jong MR , Adiyaman A , Gal P , et al. Renal nerve stimulationinduced blood pressure changes predict ambulatory blood pressure response after renal denervation . Hypertension . 2016 ; 68 : 707 - 14 .
6. de Jager RL , de Beus E , Beeftink MM , et al. Impact of medication adherence on the effect of renal denervation: the SYMPATHY trial . Hypertension . 2017 ; 69 : 678 - 84 .