37. Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Resistant Hypertension Treated with Renal Denervation, Does it Work?: a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertension is a worldwide condition that occurs in a fourth of the world’s population and it is still rising, posing a threat to public health, with two-thirds living in low- to middle-income countries. One of the procedural treatments to treat resistant hypertension is renal denervation. However, the efficacy of renal denervation with resistant hypertension is not known and needs further investigations. Objective: The purpose of this study was to find out the efficacy of renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension. Method: This review was conducted on 10-15 December 2023. Two independent researchers systematically extracted data from several databases, such as PubMed Central (PMC), Science Direct, and PUBMED by using MeSH terminology of keywords renal denervation, hypertension, and safety. The extracted studies were then analyzed and selected according to our inclusion criteria such as studies in the last 5 years, cohort studies, and case-control studies. We excluded systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, case reports, studies on pregnant women, children, and animals. Research quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS). Result: From 10 cohort studies (2753 subjects from various countries), 9 of them showed renal denervation reduced blood pressure based on ambulatory monitoring. One of the studies showed the blood pressure lowering effect able to reach up to 3 years; All studies have proven good quality based on NOS. Conclusion: In conclusion, renal denervation showed efficacy by significantly reducing the blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension. However, further study is needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".