FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2912107922> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2912107922 endingPage "603" @default.
• W2912107922 startingPage "601" @default.
• W2912107922 abstract "HomeCirculationVol. 139, No. 5Status of Renal Denervation Therapy for Hypertension Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBStatus of Renal Denervation Therapy for HypertensionStill in Search of the Magic Bullet C. Venkata S. Ram, MD, MACP C. Venkata S. RamC. Venkata S. Ram C. Venkata S. Ram, MD, MACP, FACC, FASH, 13154 Coit Road, Dallas, TX 75240. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] Texas Blood Pressure Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Dallas. Apollo Institute for Blood Pressure Management, Apollo Hospitals and Apollo Medical College, World Hypertension League/South Asia Office, Hyderabad, India. India Campus, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Medical School, Sydney, Australia. Search for more papers by this author Originally published28 Jan 2019https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037937Circulation. 2019;139:601–603This article is a commentary on the followingA Three-Arm Randomized Trial of Different Renal Denervation Devices and Techniques in Patients With Resistant Hypertension (RADIOSOUND-HTN)Article, see p 590Systemic hypertension remains a major perpetuating cardiovascular disorder globally accounting for substantial mortality and morbidity.1 Elevated blood pressure from any cause is a precursor for the onset and progression of coronary artery disease, heart failure, cerebrovascular disease (including dementia), peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage kidney disease. Despite significant advances in our understanding and management of hypertension, a large number of patients continue to have blood pressure levels above the recommended goals. Reasons for uncontrolled hypertension, despite effective therapy, are multifactorial, complex, and not fully understood. Several factors contribute to so-called resistant hypertension, one of which is poor compliance with medical therapy, and complementary therapeutic pathways for effective blood pressure control are needed.The seeming complexity of controlling hypertension despite optimal therapy has triggered much research and consideration of device-based interventional therapies, such as catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) and baro-receptor activation. To date, research interest and progress in the potential utility of RDN to treat hypertension has been phenomenal.2 A pathophysiological role of the sympathetic nervous system in the genesis of hypertension is well established.3,4 Before the current era of pharmacological inhibition of sympathetic nervous system, surgical sympathectomy was used to treat severe hypertension.5 However, surgical sympathectomy was fraught with intolerable adverse consequences such as postural hypotension and was therefore abandoned. The pathophysiological concept underlying surgical sympathectomy remained intact and has been revived by the development of RDN therapy directed at ablation of renal (efferent and afferent) nerves penetrating the renal artery. Stimulation of renal afferent and efferent nerves raises blood pressure by vasoconstrictor and volume/sodium mechanisms.6 Hence, blunting the activity of renal nerves by RDN has been shown to lower blood pressure levels. Catheter-based renal endovascular approaches using radiofrequency, ultrasound, or chemical agents to disrupt renal nerve traffic have been developed and assessed in several clinical trials.7–9The initial proof-of-concept clinical studies with RDN demonstrated dramatic therapeutic results.10,11 RDN was hailed as a possible panacea to resolve the puzzle of uncontrolled hypertension. These initial observations showed that RDN therapy lowered systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels by as much as 32 mm Hg and 20 mm Hg, respectively. It is interesting to note that, in these earlier nonrandomized trials, the blood pressure–lowering effect of RDN endured up to 36 months. The enthusiasm for RDN evaporated quickly when a sham-controlled randomized trial, Simplicity HTN-3 (Renal Denervation in Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension), showed that RDN was not superior to drug therapy.12 A number of reasons have been proposed to explain the lack of benefit from RDN in Simplicity HTN-3, such as incomplete denervation, the inexperience of the operators, improper selection of patients, and faulty design of the study itself. The failure of RDN therapy subsequently led to the improvement and redesign of the ablation catheters to provide (comprehensive) 4-quadrant bilateral renal nerve ablation of the main plus accessory renal arteries.13,14 These second-generation RDN catheters have yielded blood pressure effects with expectations reset to more realistic modest goals (single-digit blood pressure reduction as opposed to the originally observed double digits).In the study reported by Fengler and coworkers15 in this issue of Circulation, the investigators compared 3 different techniques of RDN in patients with resistant hypertension. The Radiosound-HTN comparative trial (Randomized Comparison of Ultrasound Versus Radiofrequency Denervation in Patients With Therapy Resistant Hypertension) showed that, in patients with resistant hypertension, RDN using endovascular ultrasound afforded superior reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) in comparison with radiofrequency ablation of the renal arteries. As discussed in the publication, endovascular ultrasound–based RDN was the winner over radiofrequency ablation of the main arteries with or without ablation of the side branches. This first randomized head-to-head comparison of 3 RDN methods reveals novel findings and raises new questions about the procedural mechanics of RDN therapy. A total of 120 patients were assigned to 1 of the 3 study groups: radiofrequency ablation of the main renal arteries RDN, versus radiofrequency ablation of the main renal arteries and branches RDN, versus endovascular ultrasound ablation of the main renal arteries RDN. The primary outcome (ambulatory SBP) at 3 months was superior in the endovascular ultrasound ablation of the main renal arteries RDN group (13.2 mm Hg) in comparison with radiofrequency ablation of the main renal arteries RDN (6.5 mm Hg), with intermediate effects observed with radiofrequency ablation of the main renal arteries and branches RDN (8.3 mm Hg). Although the average blood pressure (BP) reductions were modest and the number of patients was small, head-to-head comparison showed an advantage for endovascular ultrasound ablation of the main renal arteries RDN perhaps because of the deeper penetration of ultrasound energy and more complete renal nerve ablation. It should be noted that the actual proportion of patients demonstrating at least a 5 mm Hg drop in SBP did not differ in the treatment groups.Even with the publication of these new data, it is difficult to predict whether RDN is firmly back on track as a viable option to treat hypertension. Some caveats should be mentioned, including that only patients with large renal arteries were chosen for the study; the findings may not be replicable in patients with small-caliber renal arteries. Patient enrollment in the study was very selective; of 1884 patients screened, only 120 patients met the inclusion criteria, a reflection of how rigorous and complex the patient selection was for a condition so common as hypertension. This raises the question of practical applicability of RDN in the real world. In a few patients, the reduction in SBP was impressive (close to 40 mm Hg), but in a majority of responders, the effect was more modest, and in ≈30% there was no change in SBP. So, we have a basket filled with good responders, marginal responders, and nonresponders who all met the same entry criteria. How can we reconcile these disparate or even divergent results? It is curious how the responder nomenclature has changed lately in the RDN clinical trials. In the earlier studies,10,11 SBP reductions of 30 to 40 mm Hg were touted as the usual responders, and now exactly similar reductions in BP are heralded as hyperresponders. That means the earlier acclaim for RDN efficacy was unrealistic, and a more reasonable 5- to 6-mm Hg change in SBP is now acknowledged as the expected norm. The earlier ballyhoo has given way to more sober and prudent expectations.The ultimate litmus test is to identify hyperresponders and nonresponders to RDN therapy. And this is not going to be easy without a clear definition of the parameters that might predict therapeutic response to RDN. Otherwise, we will be left with average reductions in BP. The law of averages will not work in the clinical setting just as mixing passing grades in an examination with failing grades misses the successful candidates. The quest in RDN science is how to separate the winners from the losers. Selection of suitable patients for RDN therapy, therefore, is of paramount importance that will make or break the promise of RDN. Which is the best technology to offer a critical degree of renal denervation? What are the biological, humoral, and physical characteristics of a responder versus nonresponder? And which level of hypertension best responds to RDN? Is the delayed BP response to RDN at 3 or 6 months realistic in clinical practice? And what do you do during this hopeful waiting period of 3 to 6 months? Obviously, this is not the conventional standard to monitor BP response to any therapy. Procedures such as baro-receptor activation and removal of a sympathetic nervous system mass by sympathectomy or pheochromocytoma excision yield an immediate blood pressure response (hours to days), whereas response to RDN may take weeks to months. The undue delay in response raises the question of mechanism(s) by which RDN influences blood pressure regulation in patients with hypertension.At the moment, what is known is outweighed by what is unknown. And furthermore, if the therapeutic outcome is operator dependent, the scope of RDN will be very narrow. Is it possible that in responders RDN intercepted only the pressor renal nerve traffic? And in nonresponders, only the (vaso) depressor renal nerves are intercepted? The alluring possibility of selectively denervating only (vaso) pressor renal nerves should be explored. Any procedure or drug is ultimately defined by the ratio of responders to nonresponders. Even with direct (visual) surgical sympathectomy in only 27% of patients, a diastolic BP reduction of 20 mm Hg was achieved.5 It should not be a bombshell then that BP response to an imperceptive and imperfect procedure such as RDN is at best modest. The results shown by Fengler et al are encouraging and pave the way for a possible revival of RDN as a conceivable option to complement antihypertensive drug therapy. The results of Radiosound-HTN leave the door open for continued procedural refinements and precision in accomplishing optimal RDN. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? It is in the eye of the beholder. Given the highly variable therapeutic responses in a heterogeneous conglomerate of patients with systemic hypertension, RDN therapy is still in search of the magic bullet.AcknowledgmentsThe author thanks N. Madhavi Latha for her secretarial and editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.https://www.ahajournals.org/journal/circC. Venkata S. Ram, MD, MACP, FACC, FASH, 13154 Coit Road, Dallas, TX 75240. Email [email protected]comReferences1. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies.BMJ. 2009; 338:b1665. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1665CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Mahfoud F, Bohm M, Azizi M, Pathak A, Durand Zaleski I, Ewen S, Tsioufis K, Andersson B, Blankestijn PJ, Burnier M, Chatellier G, Gafoor S, Grassi G, Joner M, Kjeldsen SE, Luscher TF, Lobo MD, Lotan C, Parati G, Redon J, Ruilope L, Sudano I, Ukena C, van Leeuwen E, Volpe M, Windecker S, Witkowski A, Wijns W, Zeller T, Schmieder RE. Proceedings from the European clinical consensus conference for renal denervation: considerations on future clinical trial design.Eur Heart J. 2015; 36:2219–2227.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Ram CVS, Kumar AS. Physiological rationale for renal denervation therapy in hypertension.Heuser RR, ed. In: Renal Denervation: A New Approach to Treatment of Resistant Hypertension. London: Springer-Verlag; 2015:9–13.Google Scholar4. Esler M, Lambert E, Schlaich M. Point: chronic activation of the sympathetic nervous system is the dominant contributor to systemic hypertension.J Appl Physiol (1985). 2010; 109:1996–1998; discussion 2016. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00182.2010CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Newcombe CP, Shucksmith HS, Suffern WS. Sympathectomy for hypertension: follow-up of 212 patients.Br Med J. 1959; 1:142–144.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. DiBona GF, Kopp UC. Neural control of renal function.Physiol Rev. 1997; 77:75–197. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1997.77.1.75CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Desch S, Okon T, Heinemann D, Kulle K, Röhnert K, Sonnabend M, Petzold M, Müller U, Schuler G, Eitel I, Thiele H, Lurz P. Randomized sham-controlled trial of renal sympathetic denervation in mild resistant hypertension.Hypertension. 2015; 65:1202–1208. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05283LinkGoogle Scholar8. Azizi M, Schmieder RE, Mahfoud F, Weber MA, Daemen J, Davies J, Basile J, Kirtane AJ, Wang Y, Lobo MD, Saxena M, Feyz L, Rader F, Lurz P, Sayer J, Sapoval M, Levy T, Sanghvi K, Abraham J, Sharp ASP, Fisher NDL, Bloch MJ, Reeve-Stoffer H, Coleman L, Mullin C, Mauri L; RADIANCE-HTN Investigators. Endovascular ultrasound renal denervation to treat hypertension (RADIANCE-HTN SOLO): a multicentre, international, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial.Lancet. 2018; 391:2335–2345. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31082-1CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Mahfoud F, Bakris G, Bhatt DL, Esler M, Ewen S, Fahy M, Kandzari D, Kario K, Mancia G, Weber M, Böhm M. Reduced blood pressure-lowering effect of catheter-based renal denervation in patients with isolated systolic hypertension: data from SYMPLICITY HTN-3 and the Global SYMPLICITY Registry.Eur Heart J. 2017; 38:93–100. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw325MedlineGoogle Scholar10. Krum H, Schlaich M, Whitbourn R, Sobotka PA, Sadowski J, Bartus K, Kapelak B, Walton A, Sievert H, Thambar S, Abraham WT, Esler M. Catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation for resistant hypertension: a multicentre safety and proof-of-principle cohort study.Lancet. 2009; 373:1275–1281. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60566-3CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Esler MD, Krum H, Sobotka PA, Schlaich MP, Schmieder RE, Bohm M. Renal sympathetic denervation in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension (The Symplicity HTN-2 Trial): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2010; 376:1903–1909.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, D’Agostino R, Flack JM, Katzen BT, Leon MB, Liu M, Mauri L, Negoita M, Cohen SA, Oparil S, Rocha-Singh K, Townsend RR, Bakris GL; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Investigators. A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:1393–1401. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402670CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Townsend RR, Mahfoud F, Kandzari DE, Kario K, Pocock S, Weber MA, Ewen S, Tsioufis K, Tousoulis D, Sharp ASP, Watkinson AF, Schmieder RE, Schmid A, Choi JW, East C, Walton A, Hopper I, Cohen DL, Wilensky R, Lee DP, Ma A, Devireddy CM, Lea JP, Lurz PC, Fengler K, Davies J, Chapman N, Cohen SA, DeBruin V, Fahy M, Jones DE, Rothman M, Böhm M; SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED trial investigators. Catheter-based renal denervation in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the absence of antihypertensive medications (SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED): a randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial.Lancet. 2017; 390:2160–2170. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32281-XCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Kandzari DE, Böhm M, Mahfoud F, Townsend RR, Weber MA, Pocock S, Tsioufis K, Tousoulis D, Choi JW, East C, Brar S, Cohen SA, Fahy M, Pilcher G, Kario K; SPYRAL HTN-ON MED Trial Investigators. Effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the presence of antihypertensive drugs: 6-month efficacy and safety results from the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED proof-of-concept randomised trial.Lancet. 2018; 391:2346–2355. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30951-6CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Fengler K, Rommel KP, Blazek S, Besler C, Hartung P, von Roeder M, Petzold M, Winkler S, Höllriegel R, Desch S, Thiele H, Lurz P. A three-arm randomized trial of different renal denervation devices and techniques in patients with resistant hypertension (RADIOSOUND-HTN). Circulation. 2019; 139:590–600. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037654LinkGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Ram C (2022) Renal denervation therapy for hypertension: all that glitters is not gold, European Heart Journal, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac065, 43:23, (2177-2178), Online publication date: 14-Jun-2022. Pérez N, Muffly K and Saddow S (2021) Technical advance in silico and in vitro development of a new bipolar radiofrequency ablation device for renal denervation, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 10.1186/s12872-021-02305-x, 21:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Chepurnoy A, Shugushev Z, Maksimkin D and Korsunskiy D (2021) Influence of various techniques of radiofrequency sympathetic denervation of the renal arteries on effectiveness of this procedure, Kardiologiya i serdechno-sosudistaya khirurgiya, 10.17116/kardio202114051428, 14:5, (428), . Ram C, Iyengar S, Wander G, Nair T, Kumar A, Ray S and Sharma S (2021) Renal denervation therapy for hypertension: truths and half-truths, AsiaIntervention, 10.4244/AIJ-D-21-00013, 7:1, (62-68), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2021. Delgado Silva J, Almeida J, Rodrigues-Santos P, Santos Rosa M and Gonçalves L (2020) Activated double-negative T cells (CD3+CD4−CD8−HLA-DR+) define response to renal denervation for resistant hypertension, Clinical Immunology, 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108521, 218, (108521), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020. Aronow H and Sardar P (2020) Renal Sympathetic Denervation for Hypertension: Outside-In and Inside-Out, Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.03.006, 21:4, (538-539), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2020. Sreenivas Kumar A and Rama Krishna J (2020) Renal denervation- its current status & future prospects for management of Hypertension, Archives of Clinical Hypertension, 10.17352/ach.000026, (019-021), Online publication date: 3-Sep-2020. Prado A, Pérez-Martínez C, Regueiro-Purriños M, Cuellas-Ramón C, López-Benito M, Gonzalo-Orden J, Estévez-Loureiro R, Cortina-Rivero A, Viñuela-Baragaño D, R Altonaga J, Tellez A and Fernández-Vázquez F (2020) Development and Evaluation of a Disease Large Animal Model for Preclinical Assessment of Renal Denervation Therapies, Animals, 10.3390/ani10091446, 10:9, (1446) Lazarus N and Harridge S (2021) A Hypothesis: The Interplay of Exercise and Physiological Heterogeneity as Drivers of Human Ageing, Frontiers in Physiology, 10.3389/fphys.2021.695392, 12 Wang K, Qi Y, Gu R, Dai Q, Shan A, Li Z, Gong C, Chang L, Hao H, Duan J, Xu J, Hu J, Mu D, Zhang N, Lu J, Wang L, Wu H, Li L, Kang L and Xu B (2022) Renal Denervation Attenuates Adverse Remodeling and Intramyocardial Inflammation in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 10.3389/fcvm.2022.832014, 9 Delgado-Silva J, Rodrigues-Santos P, Almeida J, Santos-Rosa M and Gonçalves L (2022) Dynamics of Soluble Factors and Double-Negative T Cells Associated with Response to Renal Denervation in Resistant Hypertension Patients, Journal of Personalized Medicine, 10.3390/jpm12030343, 12:3, (343) Zangooei H, Mirbozorgi S and Mirbozorgi S (2022) Dependence of Temperature Rise on the Position of Catheters and Implants Power Sources Due to the Heat Transfer into the Blood Flow, Electronics, 10.3390/electronics11121878, 11:12, (1878) Related articlesA Three-Arm Randomized Trial of Different Renal Denervation Devices and Techniques in Patients With Resistant Hypertension (RADIOSOUND-HTN)Karl Fengler, et al. Circulation. 2019;139:590-600 January 29, 2019Vol 139, Issue 5 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2019 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037937PMID: 30689414 Originally publishedJanuary 28, 2019 Keywordsdenervationsympathectomyblood pressurecardiovascular diseaseshypertensionEditorialsPDF download Advertisement SubjectsHigh Blood PressureHypertension" @default.
• W2912107922 created "2019-02-21" @default.
• W2912107922 creator A5042912585 @default.
• W2912107922 date "2019-01-29" @default.
• W2912107922 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2912107922 title "Status of Renal Denervation Therapy for Hypertension" @default.
• W2912107922 cites W1583834060 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2016724424 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2054796764 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2115461708 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2133088349 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2135446787 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2150305971 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2152487583 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2748414916 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2803910972 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2804838656 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W2893074865 @default.
• W2912107922 cites W4205373146 @default.
• W2912107922 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.118.037937" @default.
• W2912107922 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30689414" @default.
• W2912107922 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2912107922 type Work @default.
• W2912107922 sameAs 2912107922 @default.
• W2912107922 citedByCount "14" @default.
• W2912107922 countsByYear W29121079222019 @default.
• W2912107922 countsByYear W29121079222020 @default.
• W2912107922 countsByYear W29121079222021 @default.
• W2912107922 countsByYear W29121079222022 @default.
• W2912107922 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2912107922 hasAuthorship W2912107922A5042912585 @default.
• W2912107922 hasBestOaLocation W29121079221 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConcept C2776805190 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConcept C3019558611 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConcept C84393581 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConceptScore W2912107922C126322002 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConceptScore W2912107922C164705383 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConceptScore W2912107922C177713679 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConceptScore W2912107922C2776805190 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConceptScore W2912107922C3019558611 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConceptScore W2912107922C71924100 @default.
• W2912107922 hasConceptScore W2912107922C84393581 @default.
• W2912107922 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2912107922 hasLocation W29121079221 @default.
• W2912107922 hasLocation W29121079222 @default.
• W2912107922 hasOpenAccess W2912107922 @default.
• W2912107922 hasPrimaryLocation W29121079221 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W115922469 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W1899299631 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W2050943580 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W2094014018 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W2171476985 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W2325101730 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W2387230403 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W2579414041 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W2976854704 @default.
• W2912107922 hasRelatedWork W4318917575 @default.
• W2912107922 hasVolume "139" @default.
• W2912107922 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2912107922 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2912107922 magId "2912107922" @default.
• W2912107922 workType "article" @default.