{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022295623451692816, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005780346820809248, 'mean_word_length': 5.412698412698413, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Postinfarct Ventricular Arrhythmias: Should We Calm the Renal Nerves?

The risk of sudden death from ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in the early post–myocardial infarction period is well appreciated by clinicians who are often faced with varying degrees of uncertainty when it comes to assessing arrhythmic risk in their patients.1 Effectively reducing this risk, therefore, has important clinical implications. In this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions , we are directed by Jackson et al2 to look once again in the direction of renal arterial denervation (RDN) as an approach to addressing this risk. Modulating the sympathetic nervous system to reduce cardiac dysrhythmias is well supported by several preclinical and clinical reports.3–7 Cervical sympathectomy, for example, is one such modality that has been effectively used in the treatment of refractory VAs in certain clinical situations.7 However, the pursuit of RDN for its antiarrhythmic properties has waned over the recent years in light of the negative SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial (Renal Denervation in Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension).8

See Article by Jackson et al 

In the present study, the authors present a preclinical, …