MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396998037 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1217c

Prospective Study of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Endovascular Renal Ablation in Individuals with Chronic Kidney Pain and Opiate Use

2020· article· en· W4396998037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Víctor A. López, Abhishek Deshmukh, Rajiv Gulati, Paul J. Novotny, Marie C. Hogan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOpiateChronic painProspective cohort studyNephrologyKidney diseaseAblationIntensive care medicineUrologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Endovascular renal ablation (ERA) may be useful for palliating and in some instances relieving refractory kidney pain (RKP) but is not widely available. We report our experience of ERA in 20 patients with RKP. Methods: We conducted a prospective study of patient-reported outcomes pre and post ERA for RKP. Baseline & subsequent pain questionnaires (McGill Pain (MPQ), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Opioid oral morphine milligrams equivalent (MME)) & QOL (LASA-6, PHQ-9 & SF-8) were obtained. The Wilcoxon test was used. ERA using an open irrigated ablation catheter was performed in a spiral manner distal to proximal upto the renal artery ostium. Power was titrated between 5-30 watts guided by change in impedance. Results: We performed 24 ERA (3 bilateral, 21 unilateral; 4 redos) in 20 patients, female:male; 14:6; median age 40yr. 12 patients (60%) had Loin Pain Hematuria Syndrome(LPHS), 4 (20%) ADPKD, and others 4 (20%). 17 of 20 have completed the baseline questionnaires & 9 of 17 patients have 6mo data. All nine experienced variable or complete reductions in pain & QOL from baseline to 6mo (Table1). A median of 8mo pain relief was reported. After their first ERA, responders (pain relief >6mo) median 8.5mo (n=12/20;60%) while 4 (20%) reported pain relief <6mo (non-responders) median 2mo. 3 (15%) had no relief, and 1 was lost to FU. In the redo ERA, there was no relief in 2; in 1 pain relief lasted 4mo (non-responder), and in the other, relief was 8mo (responder). Following the first ERA, MME decreased by ≥30% in 6, increased in 7 (≥30% in 6;15% in 1), was unchanged in 3, and no data was available in 4. There were 3 access site hematomas, one acute renal artery dissection (procedure related) requiring stents & one renal artery stenosis (5mo later) treated by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty but subsequent reduced kidney function. Conclusions: Among patients with RKP undergoing ERA, half achieved objective improvement in pain & QOL at 6 mo. Prospective randomized studies with careful patient selection are required to assess the role of ERA for palliation of pain. Assessments of Pain & QOL

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207