Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of Endovascular Ultrasound Renal Denervation or a Sham Procedure 6 Months After Medication Escalation: The RADIANCE Clinical Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, sham-controlled RADIANCE-HTN (A Study of the Recor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension) SOLO, RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, and RADIANCE II (A Study of the Recor Medical Paradise System in Stage II Hypertension) trials independently met their primary end point of a greater reduction in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) 2 months after ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) in patients with hypertension. To characterize the longer-term effectiveness and safety of uRDN versus sham at 6 months, after the blinded addition of antihypertensive treatments (AHTs), we pooled individual patient data across these 3 similarly designed trials. METHODS: Patients with mild to moderate hypertension who were not on AHT or with hypertension resistant to a standardized combination triple AHT were randomized to uRDN (n=293) versus sham (n=213); they were to remain off of added AHT throughout 2 months of follow-up unless specified blood pressure (BP) criteria were exceeded. In each trial, if monthly home BP was ≥135/85 mm Hg from 2 to 5 months, standardized AHT was sequentially added to target home BP <135/85 mm Hg under blinding to initial treatment assignment. Six-month outcomes included baseline- and AHT-adjusted change in daytime ambulatory, home, and office SBP; change in AHT; and safety. Linear mixed regression models using all BP measurements and change in AHT from baseline through 6 months were used. RESULTS: Patients (70% men) were 54.1±9.3 years of age with a baseline daytime ambulatory/home/office SBP of 150.5±9.8/151.0±12.4/155.5±14.4 mm Hg, respectively. From 2 to 6 months, BP decreased in both groups with AHT titration, but fewer uRDN patients were prescribed AHT (P=0.004), and fewer additional AHT were prescribed to uRDN patients versus sham patients (P=0.001). Whereas the unadjusted between-group difference in daytime ambulatory SBP was similar at 6 months, the baseline and medication-adjusted between-group difference at 6 months was -3.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -5.7, -0.2; P=0.033), in favor of uRDN+AHT. For home and office SBP, the adjusted between-group differences in favor of uRDN+AHT over 6 months were -5.4 mm Hg (-6.8, -4.0; P<0.001) and -5.2 mm Hg (-7.1, -3.3; P<0.001), respectively. There was no heterogeneity between trials. Safety outcomes were few and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient-data analysis of 506 patients included in the RADIANCE trials demonstrates the maintenance of BP-lowering efficacy of uRDN versus sham at 6 months, with fewer added AHTs. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02649426 and NCT03614260.

Do I Belong Here? Confronting Imposter Syndrome at an Individual, Peer, and Institutional Level in Health Professionals.

Introduction: Imposter syndrome (IS) is a feeling of being an intellectual fraud and is common among health professionals, particularly those underrepresented in medicine. IS is accompanied by burnout, self-doubt, and beliefs of decreased success. This workshop aims to discuss the impact of IS and develop strategies to confront IS at the individual, peer, and institutional levels. Methods: During the 75-minute interactive workshop, participants listened to didactics and engaged in individual reflection, small-group case discussion, and large-group instruction. Workshop participants and facilitators included medical students, residents, fellows, faculty, staff, and program leadership. Anonymous postworkshop evaluations exploring participants' satisfaction and intentions to change their behavior were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative data, and content analysis was used to analyze participants' intentions to change their behavior. Results: The workshop was presented at three local academic conferences and accepted at one national conference. Data were collected from 92 participants. Ninety-two percent of participants felt the workshop met its objectives, and 90% felt the workshop was a valuable use of their time. Furthermore, 90% of participants stated they would apply information learned at the workshop in the future. The participants indicated an intent to change behavior on individual, peer, and institutional levels, while recognizing that barriers exist at all those levels. Discussion: This workshop proved to be an effective means to discuss strategies on how to address IS at the individual, peer, and institutional levels. The materials can be adapted for relevance to various audiences.

Innovation in hemodialysis: Using the Biodesign process to identify unmet needs.

There is renewed demand to accelerate innovation in nephrology; public and private sectors are creating programs to support its growth. The Stanford Biodesign innovation process, first developed in 2000, provides a roadmap for health technology and device innovation. There is insufficient published guidance on the application of the Biodesign process in the generation of novel devices to address nephrology- and/or dialysis-related clinical unmet needs. We present "needs finding," the initial part of the identify phase in the Biodesign innovation process and how it may be utilized for nephrology- and/or dialysis-related innovation. We describe here how to apply the Biodesign process to identify unmet dialysis-related needs, with the use of specific case-based examples based on observations within a hemodialysis unit. We then explore how to develop these needs using background research, direct clinical observations, interviews, documentation of observations and interview findings, and development of multiple needs statements. We conclude that there is an opportunity for nephrology innovators to use this methodology broadly in order to identify areas for innovation and initiated the development on novel solutions to be introduced into patient care.

Stanford's Biodesign Innovation program: Teaching opportunities for value-driven innovation in surgery.

The Stanford Biodesign Innovation process, which identifies meaningful clinical needs, develops solutions to meet those needs, and plans for subsequent implementation in clinical practice, is an effective training approach for new generations of healthcare innovators. Continued success of this process hinges on its evolution in response to changes in healthcare delivery and an ever-increasing demand for economically viable solutions. In this article, we provide perspective on opportunities for value-driven innovation in surgery and relate these to value-related teaching elements currently integrated in the Stanford Biodesign process.