Renal sympathetic denervation as second‐line therapy in mild resistant hypertension: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation (CRD) is associated with significant blood pressure (BP) reductions in patients with severe therapy-resistant hypertension (office systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg or ≥ 150 mm Hg in diabetic patients). Effects of renal denervation on BP in patients with milder forms of therapy-resistant hypertension have not been examined. We sought to investigate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of CRD in patients with longstanding mild hypertension despite treatment with ≥ 3 antihypertensive drugs. METHODS: Consecutive patients with office systolic BPs of 140-160 mm Hg despite ≥ 3 antihypertensive medications treated with CRD were included in this prospective study. Procedural safety and adverse events during follow-up were assessed. Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline, 3, and 6 months to determine changes in office systolic BPs, 24-hr ambulatory BPs, and medication doses. RESULTS: Twenty patients (mean age 60.6 ± 10.8 years; 45% female) treated with an average of 5.4 ± 1.5 antihypertensive drugs were treated with CRD. The procedure was successful in all patients. There were no procedure- or device-related complications. BP at baseline was 148.4/83.0 ± 6.6/11.0 mm Hg and decreased by 5.7/0.6 ± 20.0/8.3 mm Hg (P = 0.2) and 13.1/5.0 ± 13.6/8.3 mm Hg (P < 0.01) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Comparing baseline and 6-month follow-up, mean ambulatory 24 hr-BP was reduced by 11.3/4.1 ± 8.6/7.3 mm Hg (P < 0.01). Four patients were able to reduce antihypertensive medications prior to their 3-month visit. CONCLUSION: As in patients with severe treatment-resistant hypertension, CRD is a safe and effective treatment for patients with milder drug-resistant hypertension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".