ReviewClinical hypertension2026
Renal denervation revisited: is patient selection the missing link between failure and success?
Review in Clinical hypertension, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reframing renal denervation: from blood pressure reduction to autonomic disease modification-a state-of-the-art review.Clinical hypertension · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Renal denervation (RDN) has re-emerged as a therapeutic option for hypertension following contemporary sham-controlled randomized trials demonstrating modest but consistent blood pressure (BP) reductions. Despite these advances, substantial heterogeneity in treatment response persists, sustaining debate regarding the clinical value and appropriate role of RDN. Increasing evidence suggests that patient-related factors, rather than device technology alone, may critically determine therapeutic success. This narrative review synthesizes evidence from randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and key observational studies published between 2009 and 2024. Relevant literature was identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, and major cardiovascular society publications. We evaluated the influence of hypertension phenotype, baseline BP, medication adherence, sympathetic nervous system activity, renal artery anatomy, and comorbid conditions on BP response to RDN. Accumulating data indicate that response to RDN is highly variable and strongly influenced by patient-specific characteristics. Sustained hypertension confirmed by ambulatory BP monitoring, higher baseline BP, features suggestive of sympathetic overactivity, favorable renal artery anatomy, and challenges with long-term medication adherence are consistently associated with greater BP reduction. In contrast, pseudoresistance, white-coat hypertension, advanced arterial stiffness, and unfavorable anatomy are linked to attenuated or inconsistent responses. Reassessment of sham-controlled trials highlights that observed BP reductions, although modest, are clinically meaningful when appropriately contextualized. The efficacy of RDN is highly context-dependent and should not be viewed as universal or ineffective. By shifting from a device-centered paradigm to mechanism-based patient phenotyping, RDN may be more accurately positioned as a targeted, adjunctive therapy within personalized hypertension management. A structured framework for patient selection may help reconcile prior controversies, optimize clinical implementation, and inform the design of future trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.