PATIENT PREFERENCE FOR ULTRASOUND RENAL DENERVATION AS A TREATMENT OPTION FOR HYPERTENSION: A PROSPECTIVE PATIENT PREFERENCE SURVEY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Patient Preference Information (PPI) provides important insight about patients’ thoughts about potential treatment options. Hypertension (HTN) remains global health concern with poor blood pressure (BP) control rates in US and globally. One key contributor to poor BP control is poor adherence to anti-hypertensive medication, which could be influenced by patient’s limited input in their disease management or treatment preference. RADIANCE studies demonstrated safety and efficacy of ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) in lowering BP and was recently approved by US FDA as novel treatment option for patients with HTN. This prospective survey evaluates hypertensive patients’ preference towards uRDN as a treatment option. This study evaluates if factors such as: demographics, social and educational background, HTN severity and duration, number of anti-hypertensive medication, co-morbidities and anticipated BP reduction influence patient’s choice regarding preference for uRDN or device-based treatment for their HTN. Design and method: This prospective, single-centre, mixed qualitative-quantitative study uses an anonymised electronic survey completed by hypertensive patients 18-80 years age on their own in the clinic. Patients were shown uRDN animation, efficacy, and safety data from published studies before completing their treatment preference feedback Results: Total of 100 patients completed the survey and are included in the analysis. 45% of participants were in age range of 60-69 years, 70% male, 71% White Caucasian and 29% other races. Of those that completed the survey 30% found uRDN extremely appealing compared to 33% very, 25% somewhat, 7% slightly, and 2% not at all. When asked preference between having uRDN and continuing current treatment, 67% stated they would be more likely to choose renal denervation compared to 8% would continue current treatment and 22% did not know. Additional data regarding acceptable risk-benefit, preferred outcomes with uRDN, and what demographic factors influenced decision making will be presented at the conference. Conclusions: PPI survey is useful way of collecting hypertensive patients preference towards possible treatment options specifically uRDN as device based treatment option. PPI provides insight to health care providers and could improve patients adherence to treatments as they are more involved in their own care and decision making.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".