MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913789604 · doi:10.1177/2054358119828388

Central Blood Pressure and Pulse Wave Velocity Changes Post Renal Denervation in Patients With Stages 3 and 4 Chronic Kidney Disease: The Regina RDN Study

2019· article· en· W2913789604 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bhanu Prasad, Warren Berry, Kunal Goyal, Payam Dehghani, Raymond R. Townsend

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsRegina General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureArterial stiffnessAmbulatory blood pressurePulse wave velocityKidney diseaseRenal functionInternal medicineCardiologyAmbulatoryPulse pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Central aortic blood pressures and arterial stiffness are better indicators of cardiovascular outcomes than brachial blood pressures. However, their response to renal denervation (RDN) in patients with Stage 3 and Stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) has not yet been examined. Objective: To evaluate the impact of RDN on central blood pressures (CBP), brachial (office and ambulatory) blood pressures, arterial stiffness, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), 24-hour urine protein, and selective cardiac parameters observed on echocardiograms. Design: Single-center, single-arm with pre-/post-RDN follow-up. Setting: Patients were recruited from the multidisciplinary CKD clinic, Regina General Hospital, Canada. Patients: About 25 consecutive patients with Stage 3 or Stage 4 CKD and resistant hypertension, with no radiological or laboratory evidence of secondary causes of hypertension. Measurements: The key measurements were CBP, pulse wave velocity, ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure, office blood pressures on BP Tru, GFR, 24-hour urine protein and sodium, dose and number of blood pressure medication and doses. Methods: The primary outcome measure was the change in CBP from baseline to 6 months post-RDN. Secondary outcome measures included changes in CBP, office blood pressure, 24-hour ambulatory pressures, pulse wave velocity, kidney function (eGFR and 24-hour protein excretion), and the change in the number and dose of medications during the 2-year follow-up period. The primary outcome and the secondary outcomes were evaluated using a Friedman’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for changes from post RDN procedure. Bonferroni correction was used to adjust P values for multiple testing. A two-sided alpha of .05 was used. Results: Median central blood pressures (mm Hg) were 127/75 at baseline versus 118/70 at 6 months and 118/67 at 24 months ( P = .13). Median office blood pressures (mm Hg) were 148/76 at baseline versus 135/75 at 6 months and 133/75 at 24 months ( P ≤ .001). Median ambulatory 24-hour day (mm Hg) was 148/64 at baseline and 146/68 at 6 months and 152/67 at 24 months ( P = .60). Median pulse wave velocity (m/s) at baseline was 13.8 at baseline versus 13.3 m/s at 6 months and 12.3 at 12 months’ time ( P = .62). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73m 2 ) at baseline was 37, at 6 months was 36 and 34 at 24 months ( P = .33). Limitations: Single-center study, with no sham arm. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that there was a significant improvement in office blood pressures from baseline to 6 months, maintained to 24 months. There was a numerical improvement in central pressures, and pulse wave velocity at 6 and 24 months, with no sustained changes noted in 24-hour blood pressure. Kidney function remained at or near baseline throughout the 24 months of observation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01832233).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207