Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40794217›Full record

ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2025

Renal Denervation for Hypertension: Current Evidence and Clinical Perspectives.

Jason Li, Joey Chiang, Lee Bockus, Eugene Yang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jason LiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Joey ChiangDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lee BockusDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356005, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Eugene YangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356005, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. eyang01@uw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review summarizes current literature on the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, highlights persistent disparities in care, and critically evaluates recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of renal denervation (RDN) to clarify its emerging role in hypertension management. RECENT

findingsDespite decades of therapeutic advances, progress in hypertension control has plateaued, with significant under-treatment contributing to ongoing cardiovascular disease, particularly among women and minority populations. Given the limitations of pharmacologic therapy alone, there is growing interest in alternative, procedure-based strategies. RDN, using both radiofrequency and ultrasound modalities, has shown promise in recent RCTs as an adjunctive treatment option. Hypertension remains a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with persistently poor control rates in high-risk groups despite available therapies. RDN has demonstrated efficacy in reducing blood pressure and is being integrated into clinical practice guidelines. However, its long-term impact, safety, and effectiveness in diverse and historically underrepresented populations require further study to ensure equitable implementation.

Indexed as

DenervationHypertensionKidneySympathectomyBlood PressureCatheter AblationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDisparitiesRadiofrequency ablationRandomized control trials (RCT)Renal denervation (RDN)Resistant hypertensionUltrasound-based ablation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.