Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 28;19(11):876–893. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.11.003

Table 1. Clinical studies evaluating device-based neuromodulation therapies for cardiovascular diseases (main original studies included; case reports and duplicating cohorts were excluded, except reference [9]).

Author, year Primary
condition
Age category
and groups
N patients
treated using a
neuromodulation
approach
Mean patient
age (years)
% of
males
Control
group
Sham-
controlled?
Advanced age
associated with
less efficacy
Comments Primary outcome Result
*Only studies with a control group with a standard PV isolation. AF: atrial fibrillation; BAT: baroreceptor activation therapy; BNP: brain natriuretic peptide; BP: blood pressure; CTEPH: chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension; GP: ganglionated plexi; HF: heart failure; HFpEF: heart failure with preserved left ventricle ejection fraction; HFrEF: heart failure with reduced left ventricle ejection fraction; HTN: hypertension; LVEDV: left ventricular end diastolic volume; LVEF: left ventricle ejection fraction; LVESV: left ventricular end systolic volume; MIBG: meta-iodobenzylguanidine; MLWHFQ: Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; NT-pro–BNP: N-terminal fragment of the brain natriuretic peptide; NYHA: New York Heart Failure Association; PA: pulmonary artery; PAH: pulmonary arterial hypertension; PH: pulmonary hypertension; PV: pulmonary vein; PVR: pulmonary vascular resistance; 6MWT: six-minute walk test; QoL: quality of life; RND: renal denervation.
Renal denervation
1. Ziegler, et al., 2015[91] HTN Only patients ≥ 75 years old were included 24 ● 75 (75–89) 46% No No Not analyzed A significant BP reduction following RND was found Change in mean systolic office BP at 6-months Positive
2. Krum,
et al., 2011 (Symplicity HTN-1 trial)[92]
HTN ≤ 65 years old and
> 65 years old
88 57 ± 11 61% No No No No difference in BP change between groups Change in office BP Positive
3. Esler, et al., 2010 (Symplicity HTN-2 trial)[93] HTN None 53 58 ± 12 65% 54 No Not analyzed - Change in average office systolic BP at 6 months Positive
4. Bhatt, et al., 2014 (Symplicity HTN-3 trial)[20] HTN None 535
246 patients < 65 years old
104 patients ≥ 65 years old
57.9 ± 10.4 59.1% 171
128 patients < 65 years old
104 patients ≥65 years old
Yes Yes In patients ≥ 65 years old, no difference in BP change following either an RND or sham procedure. In patients <65 years old RND produced better BP lowering Difference in office systolic blood pressure change at 6 months Neutral
5. Kandzari, et al., 2015[22]
Same population as above
HTN None 535 57.9 ± 10.4 59.1% 171 Same population as above Maybe A subanalysis of Symplicity HTN 3. Age < 65 years was not an independent factor associated with the effect Difference in office systolic blood pressure change at 6 months The subgroup of patients <65 years in age was associated with SBP change in the RDN group in univariable analysis but not in the multivariable model
6. Desch, et al., 2015[94] HTN None 35 64.5 ± 7.6 77% 36 Yes Not analyzed - Change in 24-hour systolic BP at 6 months Neutral
7. Mathiassen, et al., 2016 (ReSET Study)[95] HTN None 36 54.3 ± 7.8 75% 33 Yes Not analyzed - Mean change in daytime systolic ambulatory BP monitoring from baseline to 3 months Neutral
8. Townsend, et al., 2017 (SPYRAL OFF MED)[96] HTN None 166 55.8 ± 10.1 68.4% 165 Yes No Treatment differences suggested efficacy of renal denervation for patients of different age Change in 24-h blood pressure at 3 months Positive (although not powered for efficacy endpoints)
9. Schmeider, et al., 2018 (WAVE IV Study)[97] HTN None 42 60.3 ± 11.2 81.4% 39 Yes Not analyzed - Difference in office systolic BP at 24 weeks Neutral
10. Azizi, et al., 2018 (RADIANCE HTN SOLO)[98] HTN None 74 54.4 ± 10.2 62% 72 Yes No The blood pressure lowering effect of renal denervation was consistent across ages Mean change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP at 2 months Positive
11. Kandzari, et al., 2018 (SPYRAL ON MED)[99] HTN None 38 53.9 ± 8,7 87% 42 Yes Not analyzed - 24h BP reduction at 6 months Positive
12. Mahfoud, et al., 2020[23] HTN < 65 years and > 65 years 2466 patients with 3-years follow-up: 1059 ≥65 years old, 1407 <65 years old NA NA No No No Patients aged < 65 and ≥ 65 years had similar efficacy of RND. Patients ≥65 years old had a higher mortality rate during follow-up Document long-term safety and effectiveness of RDN in a real-world patient population Positive
13. Gao, et al., 2019[52] HFrEF None 30 60.2 ± 11.6 78.3% 30 No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported NT-proBNP, LVEF, NYHA class, 6MWT at 6 months Positive for all outcome measures
14. Chen, et al., 2016[51] HFrEF Patients > 75 years old were excluded 30 48.5 ± 8.4 73.3% 30 No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Change in LVEF at 6 months Positive
15. Spadaro, et al., 2019[54] HFrEF (Chagas’ disease) Patients > 70 years old were excluded 11 52.6 ± 8.7 90.9% 6 No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, need for renal artery invasive treatment, or worsening renal function Neutral
16. Feyz, et al., 2022 (IMPROVE-HF-I)[53] HFrEF None 24 60 ± 9 86% 25 No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported The change in 123I-MIBG heart-to-mediastinum ratio at 6 months Neutral
17. Patel, et al., 2016 (RDT-PEF)[57] HFpEF None 17 74.3 ± 6.1 60% 8 No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Improvement in at least one parameter: MLWHFQ; VO2 peak; BNP; E/e′; left atrial volume index; LV mass index Neutral
18. Kresoja, et al., 2021[56] HTN + HFpEF Patients with HF were older 154 (99 with HF and 65 without HF) 66 (61–73) 66% No No; retrospective study Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported None predefined Improvements in LV filling
19. Turagam, et al., 2021 (HFIB studies)[87] AF + HTN Patients in the RND group were significantly younger (59 ± 10 vs 68 ± 9 years); p=0.01) 31 (PV isolation + RND) 59.1 ± 10.4;
64.2 ± 6.8
62% 39 (PV isolation only) No Not analyzed RND group patients were younger that in the control group AF-freedom Neutral
20. Pokushalov, et al., 2012[85] AF + HTN None 13 (PV isolation+RND) 57 ± 8 84% 14 (PV isolation only) No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported AF recurrence at 12 months Positive
21. Pokushalov, et al., 2014[86] AF + HTN None 41 (PV isolation + RND) 56 ± 6 76% 39 (PV isolation only) No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported AF recurrence Positive
22. Kiuchi, et al., 2017[100] AF + kidney disease None 39 (PV isolation + RND) 60 ± 14 62% 197 (PV isolation only) No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported AF recurrence Neutral (Positive in chronic kidney disease stage 4 only – 13 patients)
23. Steinberg, et al., 2020 (ERADICATE-AF study)[101] AF+HTN None 154 (PV isolation + RND) 59 [54; 65] 59.1% 148 (PV isolation only) No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported AF freedom at 12 months Positive
Pulmonary artery denervation
24. Chen, et al., 2013[102] PAH None 13 40 ± 16 69% 8 No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Improvement of functional capacity by the 6MWT and mean PA pressure at 3 months Positive
25. Zhang, et al., 2019[103] PAH + PVH None 48 63.7 ± 11.8 62.5% 50 Yes Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Change in the 6MWD at 6-month follow-up evaluation at 6 months Positive
26. Romanov, et al., 2020[104] PAH (CTEPH) None 25 48 ± 14 48% 25 No Not analyzed Results in different age groups were not reported Change in PVR at 12 months Positive
27. Chen, et al., 2015[105] PAH + PH due to LV dysfunction None 66 52 ± 16 41% No No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Changes in hemodynamic, functional, and clinical responses within 1-year Positive
28. Rothman, et al., 2020 (THROPHY1)[106] PAH None 23 60.0 ± 11.4 22% No No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Secondary endpoints: PH worsening, death at 12 months, change in PVR, mean pulmonary artery pressure, right atrial pressure, 6MWD, QoL, NT-pro–BNP, disease-specific medication at 4–6 months Positive
Baroreflex activation therapy
29. Gronda, et al., 2014 (BAT in HF)[43] HFrEF None 11 67 ± 9 72.7% No No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Muscle sympathetic nerve traffic Positive
30. Abraham, et al., 2015 (HOPE4HF)[44] HFrEF None 71 64 ± 11 81.7% 69 No Not analyzed Results for different age groups were not reported Three primary efficacy endpoints: changes in NYHA functional class; QoL, and 6MHW Positive
31. Zile, et al., 2020 (BeAT-HF)[45] HFrEF 42% of BAT subjects ≥65 years old 130 62 ± 11 82% 134 controls in cohort “D” No Not analyzed Difference in effects in patients ≥65 years old was not reported Three primary effectiveness endpoints: 6MHW, QoL, and NT-proBNP (1) Positive (6MHW, QoL, NT-proBNP).
(2) Neutral in patients with baseline NT-proBNP > 1600 pg/mL (except QoL)
32. Bisognano, et al., 2011 (Rheos Pivotal Trial)[107] HTN None 181 53.7 ± 10.5 60% 84 No Not analyzed Difference in effects in patients ≥65 years old was not reported Two co-primary efficacy endpoints: 1) acute efficacy; 2) sustained efficacy (1) Neutral;
(2) Positive
33. Hoppe, et al., 2012 (Barostim neo trial)[108] HTN None 30 57 ± 12 46.7% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in patients ≥65 years old was not reported Office systolic blood pressure Positive
34. de Leeuw, et al., 2017 (US Rheos Feasibility, DEBuT-HT, Rheos Pivotal)[25] HTN None 383 53 ± 10 60% No No Yes Diastolic BP was reduced to a lesser extent in patients > 60 years of age, but these patients already had a lower diastolic pressure at the start of the study Blood pressure reduction at 6 years Positive
35. Beige, et al., 2017[109] HTN None 16 patients with therapy withdrawal after a period of BAT therapy 56.5 ± 14.4 76% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in patients ≥65 years old was not reported Automated office blood pressure Positive
Vagus nerve invasive stimulation
36. Schwartz, et al., 2008[36] HFrEF None 8 54.1 ±  11.5 (31–70) 100% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Changes in NYHA functional class, QoL, exercise capacity, LVESV, LVEDV, LVEF Positive
37. De Ferrari, et al., 2011 (CardioFit trial)[37] HFrEF None 32 56 ±  11 94% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported NYHA class, QoL, 6MWT, LVEF, LVEDV, LVESV Positive
38. Dicarlo, et al., 2013[38]; Premchand, et al., 2015[39] (ANTHEM-HF) HFrEF None 60 51.5 ±  12.2 87% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Changes in LVEF and LVESV No statistical data presented
39. Zannad, et al., 2015; De Ferrari, et al., 2017 (NECTAR-HF)[40,41] HFrEF None 63 59.8 ±  12.2 89% 32 No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported LVESD change Neutral
40. Gold, et al., 2016 (INOVATE-HF)[42] HFrEF None 436 61.7 ±  10.5 77.8% 271 No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Death or heart failure events Neutral
Vagus nerve non-invasive stimulation
41. Stavrakis, et al., 2015[88] AF None 20 60.9 ±  7.8 75% 20 Yes Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Pacing-induced AF duration Positive
42. Stavrakis, et al., 2020 (TREAT AF)[73] AF None 26 65.2 ±  14.5 46% 27 Yes Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported AF burden Positive
43. Yu, et al., 2017[89] Ischemia and reperfusion injury None 47 59 ±  11 78.7% 48 Yes Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury Positive
44. Bretherton, et al., 2019[90] Heart rate variability, QoL, mood and sleep in subjects > 55 years None 26 patients in Study-3 64.12 (1.02) 35% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Autonomic function, QoL, mood, sleep Positive in subjects with baseline parameters deviation
Splanchnic nerve
45. Fudim, et al., 2018[48] Acute decompensated heart failure None 11 64  ±  13 80% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Hemodynamic changes Positive
46. Fudim, et al., 2018[49] Acute heart failure None 5 56 55% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Hemodynamic changes Positive
47. Fudim, et al., 2020[50] Chronic heart failure None 15 58 ±  13 53% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Cardiac output and exercise capacity Positive
Spinal cord invasive stimulation
48. Bondesson, et al., 2008[110] Angina None 44 69 (54–87) 82% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Glyceryl trinitrate usage and Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification Positive
49. DeJongste, et al., 1994[111] Angina None 17 (8 treatment; 9 control) 62.5 ± 2.6 88% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Exercise tolerance test and QoL Positive
50. Eddicks, et al., 2006[112] Angina None 12 (patients were randomly assigned to different study phases, including a placebo phase) 65 ± 8 66.7% No Yes Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Functional status and symptoms Positive in conventional or subthreshold stimulation
51. Greco, et al., 1999[113] Angina None 23 69 ± 11 (38–83) NA No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Number of angina episodes Positive
52. Hautvast, et al., 1998[114] Angina Only ≤ 75 years old were included 13 62 ± 8 46% 12 Yes Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Exercise duration, time to angina, anginal attacks, nitrate consumption, number of ischemic episodes Positive
53. Lanza, et al., 2010[115] Angina None 10 with high-voltage stimulation;
7 with low-voltage stimulation
67.5 ± 13 78% 8 Yes Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Angina episodes, nitroglycerin use, angina class, quality of life Positive in the treatment “paresthetic” arm
54. Mannheimer, et al., 1988[116] Angina None 10 51–74 years 80% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Exercise tolerance test Positive
55. McNab, et al., 2006[117] Angina None 32 64.2 ± 7.3 85% 33 (laser revascularization) No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Time to angina during Exercise tolerance test Positive
56. Jesserun, et al., 1999[118] Angina None 26 61.3 ± 7 50% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported QoL Positive
57. Zipes, et al., 2012 (STARTSTIM)[119] Angina None 32 (high stimulation) 61.3 ± 9.1 (high stimulation) and 60.9 ± 12.1 (low stimulation) 75% 36 (low stimulation) Yes (high- and low-stimulation groups) Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Number of angina attacks Neutral
58. Tse, et al., 2015 (SCS HEART study)[46] Heart failure (HFrEF) None 17 62.9 ± 10.1 100% 4 No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Heart failure symptoms, functional status, and LV function and remodeling Positive
59. Zipes, et al., 2016 (DEFEAT-HF study)[47] Heart failure (HFrEF) Treatment arm was younger that controls 42 58 ± 11 76.2% 24 Yes Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Heart failure metrics: heart size, biomarkers, functional capacity, and symptoms Neutral
GP ablation*
60. Barta, et al., 2017[79] AF (surgical epicardial ablation) None 35 (PV isolation+GP ablation) 69 ± 6.4 51% 65 (PV isolation only) No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported Duration of sinus rhythm during 1 year Neutral
61. Driessen, et al., 2016 (AFACT study)[80] AF (surgical epicardial ablation) Age ≥65 years – 28% of patients 117 (PV isolation+GP ablation) 60.2 ± 8.2 73% 123 (PV isolation only) No Analyzed effects in patients <65 years and > 65 years old No difference in effects between age groups AF recurrence at 1 year Neutral.
More complications in the treatment arm.
62. Gelsomino, et al., 2016[81] AF (surgical MAZE IV with or without epicardial GP ablation) None 213 (PV isolation+GP ablation) 63 ± 7 64% 306 (PV isolation only) No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported AF-freedom (median follow-up 36.7 months) Neutral
63. Katritsis, et al., 2013[83] AF (catheter ablation) None 82 (PV isolation+GP ablation) 56 ± 8.1 60%, 70% 78 (PV isolation only) No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported AF-freedom during 2 years of follow-up Positive
64. Mikhaylov, et al., 2011[82] AF (catheter ablation) Age <65 years only 35 (GP ablation only) 56.9 ± 10.1 51% 35 (PV isolation only) No Only patients <65 years were included Difference in effects in age groups was not reported AF-freedom at 3 years Negative
65. Onorati, et al., 2008[84] AF (surgical ablation) Age > 65 years – 47.7% 31 (mini-Maze procedure+GP ablation) 64.2 ± 9.8 75% 44 (mini-Maze procedure only) No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported AF-freedom at 3 months following amiodarone stop Positive
Spinal cord non-invasive stimulation
66. Mikhaylov, et al., 2020[61] Blood pressure control (no structural heart disease) None 9 58 ± 12 55% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported BP elevation; atrioventricular refractoriness change Positive
67. Phillips, et al., 2018[60] Orthostatic hypotension (spinal trauma) None 5 23–32 years old 75% No No Not analyzed Difference in effects in age groups was not reported BP correction Positive