↓ Skip to main content

Selective vs. Global Renal Denervation: a Case for Less Is More

Overview of attention for article published in Current Hypertension Reports, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Selective vs. Global Renal Denervation: a Case for Less Is More
Published in
Current Hypertension Reports, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11906-018-0838-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marat Fudim, Asher A. Sobotka, Yue-Hui Yin, Joanne W. Wang, Howard Levin, Murray Esler, Jie Wang, Paul A. Sobotka

Abstract

Review the renal nerve anatomy and physiology basics and explore the concept of global vs. selective renal denervation (RDN) to uncover some of the fundamental limitations of non-targeted renal nerve ablation and the potential superiority of selective RDN. Recent trials testing the efficacy of RDN showed mixed results. Initial investigations targeted global RDN as a therapeutic goal. The repeat observation of heterogeneous response to RDN including non-responders with lack of a BP reduction, or even more unsettling, BP elevations after RDN has raised concern for the detrimental effects of unselective global RDN. Subsequent studies have suggested the presence of a heterogeneous fiber population and the potential utility of renal nerve stimulation to identify sympatho-stimulatory fibers or "hot spots." The recognition that RDN can produce heterogeneous afferent sympathetic effects both change therapeutic goals and revitalize the potential of therapeutic RDN to provide significant clinical benefits. Renal nerve stimulation has emerged as potential tool to identify sympatho-stimulatory fibers, avoid sympatho-inhibitory fibers, and thus guide selective RDN.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Researcher 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,029,069
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Current Hypertension Reports
#364
of 734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,906
of 326,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Hypertension Reports
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.