A relevant number of patients with resistant hypertension do not achieve blood pressure (BP) dipping during nighttime. This inadequate nocturnal BP reduction is associated with elevated cardiovascular risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a nighttime intensification of BAT might improve nocturnal BP dipping. In this prospective observational study, non-dippers treated with BAT for at least 6 months were included. BAT programming was modified in a two-step intensification of nighttime stimulation at baseline and week 6. Twenty-four hours ambulatory BP (ABP) was measured at inclusion and after 3 months. A number of 24 patients with non- or inverted dipping pattern, treated with BAT for a median of 44 months (IQR 25-52) were included. At baseline of the study, patients were 66 ± 9 years old, had a BMI of 33 ± 6 kg/m2 , showed an office BP of 135 ± 22/72 ± 10 mmHg, and took a median number of antihypertensives of 6 (IQR 4-9). Nighttime stimulation of BAT was adapted by an intensification of pulse width from 237 ± 161 to 267 ± 170 μs (p = .003) while frequency (p = .10) and amplitude (p = .95) remained unchanged. Uptitration of BAT programming resulted in an increase of systolic dipping from 2 ± 6 to 6 ± 8% (p = .03) accompanied with a significant improvement of dipping pattern (p = .02). Twenty four hours ABP, day- and nighttime ABP remained unchanged. Programming of an intensified nighttime BAT interval improved dipping profile in patients treated with BAT, while the overall 24 h ABP did not change. Whether the improved dipping response contributes to a reduction of cardiovascular risk beyond the BP-lowering effects of BAT, however, remains to be shown.

AbstractTherapy adherence significantly determines the success of antihypertensive therapy, especially in patients with resistant hypertension. Our study investigates the impact of drug adherence on the efficacy of Baroreflex‐activation‐therapy (BAT). In this retrospective analysis, the authors measured blood pressure (BP) and antihypertensive medication adherence (by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry [GC‐MS] urine analysis) before and 6 months after BAT initiation. Adherence was defined as detection of ≥80% intake of prescribed medication at the time of follow‐up. Response to BAT was defined as BP drop ≥5 mmHg in systolic 24 h‐ambulatory BP (ABP) after 6 months. Overall patients (n = 38) median medication adherence was low, but rose from 60% (IQR 25%–100%) to 75% (IQR 38%–100%; p = .0194). After 6 months of BAT, mean systolic and diastolic office BP (‐21 ± 25 mmHg and ‐9 ± 15 mmHg; p < .0001 and .0004) as well as 24 h‐ABP dropped significantly (‐9 ± 17 mmHg and ‐5 ± 12 mmHg; p = .0049 and .0280). After 6 months of BAT, 21 patients (60%) could be classified as responders. There was neither significant difference in mean office systolic (‐21 ± 23 mmHg vs. ‐21 ± 28 mmHg; p = .9581) nor in 24 h‐systolic ABP decrease (‐11 ± 19 mmHg vs. ‐7 ± 15 mmHg; p = .4450) comparing adherent and non‐adherent patients. Whereas Antihypertensive Therapeutic Index (ATI) was unchanged in non‐responders, it significantly decreased in responders (from 50 ± 16 to 46 ± 16; p = .0477). These data are the first to show that BAT‐initiation leads to a clear BP reduction independently of patients´ medication adherence. Response to BAT is associated with a significant lowering of ATI, which might contribute to an underestimation of BAT efficacy.

AbstractUncontrolled hypertension is a main risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity. Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) is an effective therapy option addressing true resistant hypertension. We evaluated patients’ eligibility for BAT in a staged assessment as well as adherence to antihypertensive drug therapy. Therefore, we analyzed files of 345 patients, attending the hypertension clinic at University Medicine Göttingen. Additionally, gas chromatographic‐mass spectrometric urine analyses of selected individuals were performed evaluating their adherence. Most common cause for a revoked BAT recommendation was blood pressure (BP) control by drug adjustment (54.2%). Second leading cause was presence of secondary hypertension (31.6%). Patients to whom BAT was recommended (59 (17.1%)) were significantly more often male (67.8% vs. 43.3%, P = .0063), had a higher body mass index (31.8 ± 5.8 vs. 30.0 ± 5.7 kg/m², P = .0436), a higher systolic office (168.7 ± 24.7 vs. 147.7 ± 24.1 mmHg, P < .0001), and 24h ambulatory BP (155.0 ± 14.6 vs. 144.4 ± 16.8 mmHg, P = .0031), took more antihypertensive drugs (5.8 ± 1.3 vs. 4.4 ± 1.4, P < .0001), and suffered more often from numerous concomitant diseases. Eventually, 27 (7.8%) received a BAT system. In the toxicological analysis of 75 patients, mean adherence was 75.1%. 16 patients (21.3%) showed non‐adherence. Thus, only a small number of patients eventually received a BAT system, as treatable reasons for apparently resistant hypertension could be identified frequently. This study is—to our knowledge—the first report of a staged assessment of patients’ suitability for BAT and underlines the need for a careful examination and indication. Non‐adherence was proven to be a relevant issue concerning apparently resistant hypertension and therefore non‐eligibility for interventional antihypertensive therapy.

Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) reduces office blood pressure (BP) in patients with resistant hypertension (HTN). Whereas sustained effects from the BAT Rheos device have already been reported, no long-term data on 24-h ambulatory BP (ABP) are currently available for the unilateral BAT Neo device. Patients treated with the BAT neo device for resistant hypertension were prospectively included into this observational study. Office and ABP measurements were performed before BAT implantation as well as 6, 12 and 24 months after initiation of BAT. A total of 60 patients with resistant HTN (office BP 172 ± 25/90 ± 17 mmHg, 24-h ABP 150 ± 16/80 ± 12 mmHg, median of antihypertensive drugs 7 (IQR 6–8)) were included. After 24 months, there was a significant reduction of − 25 ± 33/− 9 ± 18 mmHg (n = 50, both p < 0.01) in office BP and − 8 ± 23/− 5 ± 13 mmHg (n = 46, both p = 0.02) in 24-h ABP, while the number of antihypertensive medications was reduced to a median of 5 (4–6) drugs (p < 0.01). Patients with isolated systolic HTN (ISH) experienced a BP-lowering effect in office BP, but not in ABPM at month 24. Using unadjusted BP values, BAT seems to be more effective in combined hypertension (CH) than in ISH. After adjustment for baseline BP values, there was no significant difference in BP reduction between ISH and CH patients. Ambulatory SBP at baseline was the only independent correlate of BP response at month 24. BAT reduced office BP and improved relevant parameters of ABP, which is associated with a high cardiovascular risk, in patients with resistant HTN, whereas, after adjustment for baseline BP, BP reduction was not different in patients with CH compared with patients with ISH. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the effects of BAT on 24-h ABP.