Hypertension in hemodialysis patients treated with atenolol or lisinopril: a randomized controlled trial

The Combination of Beta Blockers and Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers Improves Survival in Incident Hemodialysis Patients: A Propensity-Matched Study

INTRODUCTION

Although several studies suggest that the prognosis of hypertensive dialysis patients can be improved by using antihypertensive drug therapy, it is unknown whether the prescription of a particular class or combination of antihypertensive drugs is beneficial during hemodialysis.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score matching study to compare the effectiveness of various classes of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular (CV) mortality in 2518 incident hemodialysis patients in Spain. The patients had initially received antihypertensive therapy with a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (728 patients), a ß-blocker (679 patients), antihypertensive drugs other than a RAS blocker or a ß-blocker (787 patients), or the combination of a ß-blocker and a RAS inhibitor (324 patients). These patients were followed for a maximum of 5 years (median: 2.21 yr; range: 1.04-3.34 yr).

RESULTS

After adjustment for baseline CV risk covariates, no significant differences were observed in the risk of CV mortality between patients taking a RAS blocker and patients treated with ß-blocker-based antihypertensive therapy. The combination of a RAS blocker with a ß-blocker was associated with better CV survival than either agent alone (RAS blocker: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.69; ß-blocker: HR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.01-2.50; antihypertensive medication other than a RAS blocker or ß-blocker: HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.08-2.58).

DISCUSSION

Our data suggested that the combination of a RAS blocker and a ß-blocker could improve survival in hemodialysis patients. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm the beneficial effects of this combination of antihypertensive drugs in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on cardiovascular events and residual renal function in dialysis patients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reducing risk of cardiovascular events (CVEs) and preserving kidney function in patients with chronic kidney disease is well-documented. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in dialysis patients is still a controversial issue.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Wanfang for randomized trials. The relative risk (RR) reductions were calculated with a random-effects model. Major cardiovascular events, changes in GFR and drug-related adverse events were analyzed.

Results

Eleven trials included 1856 participants who were receiving dialysis therapy. Compared with placebo or other active agents groups, ARB therapy reduced the risk of heart failure events by 33% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.93) with similar decrement in blood pressure in dialysis patients. Indirect comparison suggested that fewer cardiovascular events happened during treatment with ARB (0.77, 0.63 to 0.94). The results indicated no significant differences between the two treatment regimens with regard to frequency of myocardial infarction (1.0, 0.45 to 2.22), stroke (1.16, 0.69 to 1.96), cardiovascular death (0.89, 0.64 to 1.26) and all-cause mortality (0.94, 0.75 to 1.17). Five studies reported the renoprotective effect and revealed that ACEI/ARB therapy significantly slowed the rate of decline in both residual renal function (MD 0.93 mL/min/1.73 m², 0.38 to 1.47 mL/min/1.73 m²) and urine volume (MD 167 ml, 95% CI 21 ml to 357 ml). No difference in drug-related adverse events was observed in both treatment groups.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that ACE-Is/ARBs therapy decreases the loss of residual renal function, mainly for patients with peritoneal dialysis. Overall, ACE-Is and ARBs do not reduce cardiovascular events in dialysis patients, however, treatment with ARB seems to reduce cardiovascular events including heart failure. ACE-Is and ARBs do not induce an extra risk of side effects.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-017-0605-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Special situations: Intradialytic hypertension/chronic hypertension and intradialytic hypotension

Hypertension is a comorbidity that is present in the majority of end-stage renal disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis. This population is particularly unique because of the dynamic nature of blood pressure (BP) during dialysis. Modest BP decreases are expected in most hemodialysis patients, but intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic hypertension are two special situations that deviate from this as either an exaggerated or paradoxical response to the dialysis procedure. Both of these phenomena are particularly important because they are associated with increased mortality risk compared to patients with modest decreases in BP during dialysis. While the detailed pathophysiology is complex, intradialytic hypotension occurs more often in patients prescribed fast ultrafiltration rates, and reducing this rate is recommended in patients that regularly exhibit this pattern. Patients with intradialytic hypertension have a poorly explained increase in vascular resistance during dialysis, but the consistent associations with extracellular volume overload point toward more aggressive fluid management as the initial management choices for these patients. This up to date review provides the most recent evidence supporting these recommendations as well as the most up to date epidemiologic and mechanistic research studies that have added to this area of dialysis management.

Hypertension in dialysis patients: a consensus document by the European Renal and Cardiovascular Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) and the Hypertension and the Kidney working group of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)

In patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, hypertension is common and often poorly controlled. Blood pressure (BP) recordings obtained before or after haemodialysis display a J- or U-shaped association with cardiovascular events and survival, but this most likely reflects the low accuracy of these measurements and the peculiar haemodynamic setting related to dialysis treatment. Elevated BP detected by home or ambulatory BP monitoring is clearly associated with shorter survival. Sodium and volume excess is the prominent mechanism of hypertension in dialysis patients, but other pathways, such as arterial stiffness, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and sympathetic nervous systems, endothelial dysfunction, sleep apnoea and the use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents may also be involved. Non-pharmacologic interventions targeting sodium and volume excess are fundamental for hypertension control in this population. If BP remains elevated after appropriate treatment of sodium and volume excess, the use of antihypertensive agents is necessary. Drug treatment in the dialysis population should take into consideration the patient's comorbidities and specific characteristics of each agent, such as dialysability. This document is an overview of the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of hypertension in patients on dialysis, aiming to offer the renal physician practical recommendations based on current knowledge and expert opinion and to highlight areas for future research.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients initiating peritoneal dialysis

Background

Data on the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) are limited. We investigated the association between ACEI/ARB use and CV outcomes in patients initiating PD.

Methods

In this observational cohort study, we identified from the United States Renal Data System all adult patients who initiated PD from 2007 to 2011 and participated in Medicare Part D, a federal prescription drug benefits program, for the first 90 days of dialysis. Patients who filled a prescription for an ACEI or ARB in those 90 days were considered users. We applied Cox regression to an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the combined outcome of death, ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) and each outcome individually.

Results

Among 4879 patients, 2063 (42%) used an ACEI/ARB. Patients were followed up for a median of 1.2 years. We recorded 1771 events, for a composite rate of 25 events per 100 person-years. ACEI/ARB use (versus nonuse) was associated with a reduced risk of the composite outcome {HR 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.93]}, all-cause mortality [HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.92)] and CV death [HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.87)], but not MI [HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.69-1.12)] or ischemic stroke [HR 1.06 (95% CI 0.79-1.43)]. Results were similar in as-treated analyses. In a subgroup analysis, we did not find any effect modification by residual renal function.

Conclusions

ACEI/ARB use is common in patients initiating PD and is associated with a lower risk of fatal CV outcomes.

ACE inhibitors and the risk of fractures: a meta-analysis of observational studies

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the risk of fractures. All the included articleswere retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database. Trial eligibility and methodological quality were assessed before data extraction. Relative risk (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to assess the effect. Six case-control studies with11,387,668 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. A small but significant risk effect on fractures was shown in the overall analysis of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor users compared with nonusers (Pooled RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.01-1.60), although a relatively high heterogeneity was found across studies. In the stratified analysis, therewas no statistically significant association in the subgroups of hip fracture (Pooled RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.73-1.76) and the study quality (Pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.89-1.44), while the over 65-year-old angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor users showed a stronger risk effect on fractures (Pooled RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.53-3.17). Moreover, age was found to be contributed a large part of the high heterogeneity across the included studies. This study demonstrated that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors might have a small but significant risk effect on fractures, especially for the over 65-year-old users. These results should be interpreted with caution as the relatively high heterogeneity across studies. Additional multiple observational studies and high quality data from randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Sudden Cardiac Death Among Hemodialysis Patients

Hemodialysis patients carry a large burden of cardiovascular disease; most onerous is the high risk for sudden cardiac death. Defining sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients and understanding its pathogenesis are challenging, but inferences from the existing literature reveal differences between sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients and the general population. Vascular calcifications and left ventricular hypertrophy may play a role in the pathophysiology of sudden cardiac death, whereas traditional cardiovascular risk factors seem to have a more muted effect. Arrhythmic triggers also differ in this group as compared to the general population, with some arising uniquely from the hemodialysis procedure. Combined, these factors may alter the types of terminal arrhythmias that lead to sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients, having important implications for prevention strategies. This review highlights current knowledge on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and risk factors for sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients. We then examine strategies for prevention, including the use of specific cardiac medications and device-based therapies such as implantable defibrillators. We also discuss dialysis-specific prevention strategies, including minimizing exposure to low potassium and calcium dialysate concentrations, extending dialysis treatment times or adding sessions to avoid rapid ultrafiltration, and lowering dialysate temperature.

Peter WL, Ephraim PL, McDermott A, Herzog CA, Crews DC, Scialla JJ, Tangri N, Miskulin DC, Michels WM, Jaar BG, Zager PG, Meyer KB, Wu AW, Boulware LE. Antihypertensive medications and risk of death and hospitalizations in US hemodialysis patients: Evidence from a cohort study to inform hypertension treatment practices

Antihypertensive medications are commonly prescribed to hemodialysis patients but the optimal regimens to prevent morbidity and mortality are unknown. The goal of our study was to compare the association of routinely prescribed antihypertensive regimens with outcomes in US hemodialysis patients.We used 2 datasets for our analysis. Our primary cohort (US Renal Data System [USRDS]) included adult patients initiating in-center hemodialysis from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008 (n = 33,005) with follow-up through December 31, 2009. Our secondary cohort included adult patients from Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (DCI), a national not-for-profit dialysis provider, initiating in-center hemodialysis from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008 (n = 11,291) with follow-up through December 31, 2008. We linked the USRDS cohort with Medicare part D prescriptions-fill data and the DCI cohort with USRDS data. Unique aspect of USRDS cohort was pharmacy prescription-fill data and for DCI cohort was detailed clinical data, including blood pressure, weight, and ultrafiltration. We classified prescribed antihypertensives into the following mutually exclusive regimens: β-blockers, renin-angiotensin system blocking drugs-containing regimens without a β-blocker (RAS), β-blocker + RAS, and others. We used marginal structural models accounting for time-updated comorbidities to quantify each regimen's association with mortality (both cohorts) and cardiovascular hospitalization (DCI-Medicare Subcohort).In the USRDS and DCI cohorts there were 9655 (29%) and 3200 (28%) deaths, respectively. In both cohorts, RAS compared to β-blockers regimens were associated with lower risk of death; (hazard ratio [HR]) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for all-cause mortality, (0.90 [0.82-0.97] in USRDS and 0.87 [0.76-0.98] in DCI) and cardiovascular mortality (0.84 [0.75-0.95] in USRDS and 0.88 [0.71-1.07] in DCI). There was no association between antihypertensive regimens and the risk of cardiovascular hospitalizations.In hemodialysis patients undergoing routine care, renin-angiotensin system blocking drugs-containing regimens were associated with a lower risk of death compared with β-blockers-containing regimens but there was no association with cardiovascular hospitalizations. Pragmatic clinical trials are needed to specifically examine the effectiveness of these commonly used antihypertensive regimens in dialysis patients.

The Kidney in Hypertension

Hypertension is the second most common cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is a potentiator of kidney failure when accompanying disease. CKD is a common cause of resistant hypertension. Nephropathy progression has dramatically slowed over the past 3 decades from an average of 8 to between 2-3 mL/min per year regardless of diabetes status. The incidence of very high albuminuria as well as progression from high albuminuria very high albuminuria has substantially decreased over the past 3 decades. This improvement relates to better blood pressure control using agents that slow nephropathy as well as better glycemic and cholesterol control.

Hypertension in the Hemodialysis Patient

Hypertension is common yet difficult to manage in the hemodialysis patients population. This chapter discusses various aspects of this problem including its prevalence, distinctive pathophysiology, methods of diagnosis and pharmacological and non pharmacological treatment approaches. The topic is relevant to any health care provider taking care of hemodialysis patients.

Pharmacotherapy of Hypertension in Chronic Dialysis Patients

Among patients on dialysis, hypertension is highly prevalent and contributes to the high burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Strict volume control via sodium restriction and probing of dry weight are first-line approaches for the treatment of hypertension in this population; however, antihypertensive drug therapy is often needed to control BP. Few trials compare head-to-head the superiority of one antihypertensive drug class over another with respect to improving BP control or altering cardiovascular outcomes; accordingly, selection of the appropriate antihypertensive regimen should be individualized. To individualize therapy, consideration should be given to intra- and interdialytic pharmacokinetics, effect on cardiovascular reflexes, ability to treat comorbid illnesses, and adverse effect profile. β-Blockers followed by dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers are our first- and second-line choices for antihypertensive drug use. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers seem to be reasonable third-line choices, because the evidence base to support their use in patients on dialysis is sparse. Add-on therapy with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in specific subgroups of patients on dialysis (i.e., those with severe congestive heart failure) seems to be another promising option in anticipation of the ongoing trials evaluating their efficacy and safety. Adequately powered, multicenter, randomized trials evaluating hard cardiovascular end points are urgently warranted to elucidate the comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive drug classes in patients on dialysis. In this review, we provide an overview of the randomized evidence on pharmacotherapy of hypertension in patients on dialysis, and we conclude with suggestions for future research to address critical gaps in this important area.

Evaluation and Treatment of Hypertension in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Hemodialysis

Hypertension is one of the most common cardiovascular comorbidities in end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis. Its complex pathophysiology is related to extracellular volume overload, increased vascular resistance stemming from factors related to uremia or abnormal signaling from the failing kidneys, as well as the unique blood pressure changes that take place during and between hemodialysis treatments. Despite the changing nature of blood pressure over time in hemodialysis patients, hypertension diagnosed in or out of the hemodialysis unit is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This review details the causes of hypertension in hemodialysis patients and provides an updated review of the clinical consequences and management of hypertension.

Epidemiology, diagnosis and management of hypertension among patients on chronic dialysis

The diagnosis and management of hypertension among patients on chronic dialysis is challenging. Routine peridialytic blood pressure recordings are unable to accurately diagnose hypertension and stratify cardiovascular risk. By contrast, blood pressure recordings taken outside the dialysis setting exhibit clear prognostic associations with survival and might facilitate the diagnosis and long-term management of hypertension. Once accurately diagnosed, management of hypertension in individuals on chronic dialysis should initially involve non-pharmacological strategies to control volume overload. Accordingly, first-line strategies should focus on achieving dry weight, individualizing dialysate sodium concentrations and ensuring dialysis sessions are at least 4 h in duration. If blood pressure remains unresponsive to volume management strategies, pharmacological treatment is required. The choice of appropriate antihypertensive regimen should be individualized taking into account the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic properties of the antihypertensive medications as well as any comorbid conditions and the overall risk profile of the patient. In contrast to their effects in the general hypertensive population, emerging evidence suggests that β-blockers might offer the greatest cardioprotection in hypertensive patients on dialysis. In this Review, we discuss estimates of the epidemiology of hypertension in the dialysis population as well as the challenges in diagnosing and managing hypertension among these patients.

Preservation of residual kidney function in hemodialysis patients: reviving an old concept

Residual kidney function (RKF) may confer a variety of benefits to patients on maintenance dialysis. RKF provides continuous clearance of middle molecules and protein-bound solutes. Whereas the definition of RKF varies across studies, interdialytic urine volume may emerge as a pragmatic alternative to more cumbersome calculations. RKF preservation is associated with better patient outcomes including survival and quality of life and is a clinical parameter and research focus in peritoneal dialysis. We propose the following practical considerations to preserve RKF, especially in newly transitioned (incident) hemodialysis patients: (1) periodic monitoring of RKF in hemodialysis patients through urine volume and including residual urea clearance with dialysis adequacy and outcome markers such as anemia, fluid gains, minerals and electrolytes, nutritional, status and quality of life; (2) avoidance of nephrotoxic agents such as radiocontrast dye, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and aminoglycosides; (3) more rigorous hypertension control and minimizing intradialytic hypotensive episodes; (4) individualizing the initial dialysis prescription with consideration of an incremental/infrequent approach to hemodialysis initiation (e.g., twice weekly) or peritoneal dialysis; and (5) considering a lower protein diet, especially on nondialysis days. Because RKF appears to be associated with better patient outcomes, it requires more clinical and research focus in the care of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients.

The heart and vascular system in dialysis

The heart and the vascular tree undergo major structural and functional changes when kidney function declines and renal replacement therapy is required. The many cardiovascular risk factors and adaptive changes the heart undergoes include left ventricular hypertrophy and dilatation with concomitant systolic and diastolic dysfunction. Myocardial fibrosis is the consequence of impaired angio-adaptation, reduced capillary angiogenesis, myocyte-capillary mismatch, and myocardial micro-arteriopathy. The vascular tree can be affected by both atherosclerosis and arteriosclerosis with both lipid rich plaques and abundant media calcification. Development of cardiac and vascular disease is rapid, especially in young patients, and the phenotype resembles all aspects of an accelerated ageing process and latent cardiac failure. The major cause of left ventricular hypertrophy and failure and the most common problem directly affecting myocardial function is fluid overload and, usually, hypertension. In situations of stress, such as intradialytic hypotension and hypoxaemia, the hearts of these patients are more vulnerable to developing cardiac arrest, especially when such episodes occur frequently. As a result, cardiac and vascular mortality are several times higher in dialysis patients than in the general population. Trials investigating one pharmacological intervention (eg, statins) have shown limitations. Pragmatic designs for large trials on cardio-active interventions are mandatory for adequate cardioprotective renal replacement therapy.

Hypertension Management in Transition: From CKD to ESRD

Hypertension is present in ∼90% of patients in late-stage CKD. There are scarce data focusing on the transition period between CKD Stages 4 and 5 (end-stage kidney disease) as it relates to hypertension evaluation and management. Here, we propose that a combination of the principles used in the management of patients with CKD Stages 4 and 5 be applied to patients in this transition. These include the use of out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring (eg, home BP), avoidance of excessively tight BP goals, emphasis of sodium restriction, preferential use of blockers of the renin-angiotensin system and diuretics, and consideration of the use of beta blockers.

The Safety and Efficacy of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Patients Who Require Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who require dialysis are at high risk for cardiovascular mortality, which may be improved by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING & POPULATION

Adults undergoing long-term hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis with or without heart failure.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized controlled trials evaluating an MRA in dialysis and reported at least one outcome of interest.

INTERVENTION

Spironolactone (8 trials) or eplerenone (1 trial) compared to placebo (7 trials) or standard of care (2 trials).

OUTCOMES

Cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, hyperkalemia, serum potassium level, hypotension, change in blood pressure, and gynecomastia.

RESULTS

We identified 9 trials including 829 patients. The overall quality of evidence was low due to methodologic limitations in most of the included trials. The relative risk (RR) for cardiovascular mortality was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.15-0.75) for MRA-treated compared with control patients. The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.23-0.69). The RR for hyperkalemia for MRA treatment was 3.05 (95% CI, 1.21-7.70). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated wide variability in RRs for cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and hyperkalemia, suggesting further uncertainty in the confidence of the primary results.

LIMITATIONS

Trial quality and size insufficient to robustly and precisely identify a treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the uncertainty of both the benefits and harms of MRAs in dialysis, large high-quality trials are required.

We Hold Antihypertensives Prior To Dialysis

Hypertension is the most common complication of end-stage renal disease and chronic hemodialysis and yet, only a third of these patients have adequately controlled blood pressures. Pathogenesis of hypertension in this population is complex and multifactorial and therefore poses numerous treatment challenges. Furthermore, it is common practice among nephrologists to withhold antihypertensives prior to a hemodialysis procedure due to concerns for intradialytic hypotension (IDH). Intradialytic hypertension (ID-HTN) is an increasingly recognized phenomenon and although less common than IDH, portends poor cardiovascular prognosis as well as reflects higher hypertension burden in the dialysis population. Withholding antihypertensives prior to dialysis routinely in patients may worsen interdialytic blood pressure control as well as increase the prevalence of euvolemic ID-HTN. It may also increase the risk of cardiac arrhythmias and further compromise hemodynamic stability during dialysis. In such situations, predialysis administration of antihypertensive is appropriate and necessary and drug choice should be based on the patient's comorbidities, pharmacokinetics of the drug and its dialyzability.

The β-Blocker to Lower Cardiovascular Dialysis Events (BLOCADE) Feasibility Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

β-Blocking agents reduce cardiovascular mortality in patients with heart disease, but their potential benefit in dialysis patients is unclear. We aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

STUDY DESIGN

Pilot RCT.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients who received dialysis for 3 or more months and were 50 years or older (or ≥18 years with diabetes or cardiovascular disease) were recruited from 11 sites in Australia and New Zealand. We aimed to recruit 150 participants.

INTERVENTION

After a 6-week run-in with the β-blocker carvedilol, we randomly assigned participants to treatment with carvedilol or placebo for 12 months.

OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS

The prespecified primary outcome was the proportion of participants who tolerated carvedilol, 6.25mg, twice daily during the run-in period. After randomization, we report participant withdrawal and the incidence of intradialytic hypotension (IDH).

RESULTS

Of 1,443 patients screened, 354 were eligible, 91 consented, and 72 entered the run-in stage. 49 of 72 run-in participants (68%; 95% CI, 57%-79%) achieved the primary outcome. 5 of the 23 withdrawals from run-in were attributable to bradycardia or hypotension. After randomization, 10 of 26 allocated to carvedilol and 4 of 23 allocated to placebo withdrew. 4 participants randomly assigned to carvedilol withdrew because of bradycardia or hypotension. Overall, there were 4 IDH events per 100 hemodialysis sessions; in participants allocated to carvedilol versus placebo, respectively, there were 7 versus 2 IDH events per 100 hemodialysis sessions (P=0.1) in the 2 weeks immediately following a dose increase and 4 versus 3 IDH events per 100 hemodialysis sessions after no dose increase (P=0.7).

LIMITATIONS

Unable to recruit planned sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruiting patients receiving dialysis to an RCT of β-blocker versus placebo will prove challenging. Possible solutions include international collaboration and exploring novel trial designs such as a registry-based RCT.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Kidney and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With CKD: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

There is much uncertainty regarding the relative effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in populations with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

SETTING & POPULATION

Patients with CKD treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized trials in patients with CKD treated with RAS inhibitors.

PREDICTOR

ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared to each other and to placebo and active controls.

OUTCOME

Primary outcome was kidney failure; secondary outcomes were major cardiovascular events, all-cause death.

RESULTS

119 randomized controlled trials (n = 64,768) were included. ACE inhibitors and ARBs reduced the odds of kidney failure by 39% and 30% (ORs of 0.61 [95% credible interval, 0.47-0.79] and 0.70 [95% credible interval, 0.52-0.89]), respectively, compared to placebo, and by 35% and 25% (ORs of 0.65 [95% credible interval, 0.51-0.80] and 0.75 [95% credible interval, 0.54-0.97]), respectively, compared with other active controls, whereas other active controls did not show evidence of a significant effect on kidney failure. Both ACE inhibitors and ARBs produced odds reductions for major cardiovascular events (ORs of 0.82 [95% credible interval, 0.71-0.92] and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.62-0.89], respectively) versus placebo. Comparisons did not show significant effects on risk for cardiovascular death. ACE inhibitors but not ARBs significantly reduced the odds of all-cause death versus active controls (OR, 0.72; 95% credible interval, 0.53-0.92). Compared with ARBs, ACE inhibitors were consistently associated with higher probabilities of reducing kidney failure, cardiovascular death, or all-cause death.

LIMITATIONS

Trials with RAS inhibitor therapy were included; trials with direct comparisons of other active controls with placebo were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in people with CKD reduces the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular events. ACE inhibitors also reduced the risk for all-cause mortality and were possibly superior to ARBs for kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with CKD, suggesting that they could be the first choice for treatment in this population.

Treating hypertension in hemodialysis improves symptoms seemingly unrelated to volume excess

BACKGROUND

Among hemodialysis patients, probing dry weight is an effective strategy for improving control of hypertension. Whether controlling hypertension improves or worsens symptoms among such patients remains unclear. The purpose of the study was to develop a tool to evaluate symptoms and examine the relationship of the change in these symptoms with blood pressure (BP) control.

METHODS

Among patients participating in the Hemodialysis Patients Treated with Atenolol or Lisinopril (HDPAL) randomized controlled trial, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to establish the relationship between symptoms and organ systems. Next, the change in symptom scores pertaining to organ systems was analyzed using a mixed model. Finally, the independent effect of lowering home BP on change in symptoms was evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 133 participants where symptoms were available at baseline, CFA revealed four level 1 domains: gastrointestinal symptoms, dialysis-related symptoms, cardiovascular symptoms and general symptoms. All except dialysis-related symptoms were ascribed to uremia (level 2 domain). Uremic symptoms improved over 6 months and then increased. Dialysis-related symptoms (fatigue, cramps and orthostatic dizziness) did not worsen despite lowering home BP. Probing dry weight was independently associated with an improvement in cardiovascular symptoms such as shortness of breath.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing BP through the use of a strategy that includes volume control and medication improves symptoms seemingly unrelated to volume excess. In long-term hemodialysis patients, treating hypertension using home BP measurements may improve well-being.

Association between higher rates of cardioprotective drug use and survival in patients on dialysis

BACKGROUND

While cardiovascular (CV) disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients on chronic dialysis, utilization rates of cardioprotective drugs for dialysis patients remain low. This study sought to determine whether higher rates of cardioprotective drug use among dialysis patients might increase survival.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of incident dialysis patients (n = 50,468) with dual eligibility for U.S. Medicare and Medicaid was constructed using USRDS data linked with billing claims. Medication exposures included angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), β-blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) prescribed within 90 days of dialysis initiation. The outcomes were one- and two-year survival and CV event-free survival. Variation in treatment rates based on local area practice styles were used as instruments in instrumental variable (IV) estimation, yielding average treatment effect estimates for patients whose treatment choices were affected by local area practice styles.

RESULTS

Patients aged 65 years and older comprised 47.4% of the sample, while 59.5% were female and 35.0% were white. The utilization rate was 40.7% for ACEIs/ARBs, 43.0% for β-blockers, 50.7% for CCBs and 26.4% for statins. The local area practice style instruments were highly significantly related to cardioprotective drug use in dialysis patients (Chow-F values > 10). IV estimates showed only that higher rates of β-blockers increased one-year survival (β = 0.161, P-value = 0.020) and CV event-free survival (β = 0.189, P-value = 0.033), but that higher rates of CCBs decreased two-year CV event-free survival (β = -0.520, P-value = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that higher utilization rates of β-blockers might yield higher survival rates for dialysis patients. However, higher rates of the other drugs studied had no correlations with survival, and higher CCB rates might actually reduce CV-event free survival. Since the benefits of cardioprotective drugs may vary across dialysis patients, the study findings should be interpreted only with respect to changes of utilization rates around the rates observed in this study.

Future Avenues to Decrease Uremic Toxin Concentration

In this article, we review approaches for decreasing uremic solute concentrations in chronic kidney disease and in particular, in end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The rationale to do so is the straightforward relation between concentration and biological (toxic) effect for most toxins. The first section is devoted to extracorporeal strategies (kidney replacement therapy). In the context of high-flux hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration, we discuss increasing dialyzer blood and dialysate flows, frequent and/or extended dialysis, adsorption, bioartificial kidney, and changing physical conditions within the dialyzer (especially for protein-bound toxins). The next section focuses on the intestinal generation of uremic toxins, which in return is stimulated by uremic conditions. Therapeutic options are probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and intestinal sorbents. Current data are conflicting, and these issues need further study before useful therapeutic concepts are developed. The following section is devoted to preservation of (residual) kidney function. Although many therapeutic options may overlap with therapies provided before ESRD, we focus on specific aspects of ESRD treatment, such as the risks of too-strict blood pressure and glycemic regulation and hemodynamic changes during dialysis. Finally, some recommendations are given on how research might be organized with regard to uremic toxins and their effects, removal, and impact on outcomes of uremic patients.

Relative Importance of Aortic Stiffness and Volume as Predictors of Treatment-Induced Improvement in Left Ventricular Mass Index in Dialysis

This study aimed to explore the relative contribution of aortic stiffness and volume in treatment-induced change of left ventricular mass in dialysis. Hypertension in Hemodialysis Patients Treated with Atenolol or Lisinopril trial compared the effect of lisinopril versus atenolol in reducing left ventricular mass index; 179 patients with echo measurements of aortic pulse wave velocity and left ventricular mass at baseline were included. In unadjusted analysis, overall reductions of 26.24 g/m² (95% CI: -49.20, -3.29) and 35.67 g/m² (95% CI: -63.70, -7.64) in left ventricular mass index were noted from baseline to 6 and 12 months respectively. Volume control emerged as an important determinant of regression of left ventricular mass index due to the following reasons: (i) additional control for change in ambulatory systolic blood pressure mitigated the reduction in left ventricular mass index in the statistical model above [6-month visit: -18.6 g/m² (95% CI: -43.7, 6.5); 12-month visit: -22.1 g/m² (95% CI: -52.2, 8.0)] (ii) regression of left ventricular hypertrophy was primarily due to reduction in left ventricular chamber and not wall thickness and (iii) adjustment for inferior vena cava diameter (as a proxy for volume) removed the effect of time on left ventricular mass index reduction [6-month visit: -6.6 g/m² (95% CI: (-41.6, 28.4); 12-month visit: 0.6 g/m² (95% CI: -39.5, 40.7)]. In contrast, aortic pulse wave velocity was neither a determinant of baseline left ventricular mass index nor predictor of its reduction. Among dialysis patients, ambulatory systolic pressure, a proxy for volume expansion, but not aortic stiffness is more important predictor of reduction in left ventricular mass index. Improving blood pressure control via adequate volume management appears as an effective strategy to improve left ventricular hypertrophy in dialysis.

Cross-sectional association of volume, blood pressures, and aortic stiffness with left ventricular mass in incident hemodialysis patients: the Predictors of Arrhythmic and Cardiovascular Risk in End-Stage Renal Disease (PACE) study

Background

Higher left ventricular mass (LV) strongly predicts cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients. Although several parameters of preload and afterload have been associated with higher LV mass, whether these parameters independently predict LV mass, remains unclear.

Methods

This study examined a cohort of 391 adults with incident hemodialysis enrolled in the Predictors of Arrhythmic and Cardiovascular Risk in End Stage Renal Disease (PACE) study. The main exposures were systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), pulse pressure, arterial stiffness by pulse wave velocity (PWV), volume status estimated by pulmonary pressures using echocardiogram and intradialytic weight gain. The primary outcome was baseline left ventricular mass index (LVMI).

Results

Each systolic, diastolic blood, and pulse pressure measurement was significantly associated with LVMI by linear regression regardless of dialysis unit BP or non-dialysis day BP measurements. Adjusting for cardiovascular confounders, every 10 mmHg increase in systolic or diastolic BP was significantly associated with higher LVMI (SBP β = 7.26, 95 % CI: 4.30, 10.23; DBP β = 10.05, 95 % CI: 5.06, 15.04), and increased pulse pressure was also associated with higher LVMI (β = 0.71, 95 % CI: 0.29, 1.13). Intradialytic weight gain was also associated with higher LVMI but attenuated effects after adjustment (β = 3.25, 95 % CI: 0.67, 5.83). PWV and pulmonary pressures were not associated with LVMI after multivariable adjustment (β = 0.19, 95 % CI: −1.14, 1.79; and β = 0.10, 95 % CI: −0.51, 0.70, respectively). Simultaneously adjusting for all main exposures demonstrated that higher BP was independently associated with higher LVMI (SBP β = 5.64, 95 % CI: 2.78, 8.49; DBP β = 7.29, 95 % CI: 2.26, 12.31, for every 10 mmHg increase in BP).

Conclusions

Among a younger and incident hemodialysis population, higher systolic, diastolic, or pulse pressure, regardless of timing with dialysis, is most associated with higher LV mass. Future studies should consider the use of various BP measures in examining the impact of BP on LVM and cardiovascular disease. Findings from such studies could suggest that high BP should be more aggressively treated to promote LVH regression in incident hemodialysis patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-015-0131-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Bedside-to-Bench Translational Research for Chronic Heart Failure: Creating an Agenda for Clients Who Do Not Meet Trial Enrollment Criteria

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a chronic condition usually without cure. Significant developments, particularly those addressing pathophysiology, mainly started at the bench. This approach has seen many clinical observations initially explored at the bench, subsequently being trialed at the bedside, and eventually translated into clinical practice. This evidence, however, has several limitations, importantly the generalizability or external validity. We now acknowledge that clinical management of CHF is more complicated than merely translating bench-to-bedside evidence in a linear fashion. This review aims to help explore this evolving area from an Australian perspective. We describe the continuation of research once core evidence is established and describe how clinician-scientist collaboration with a bedside-to-bench view can help enhance evidence translation and generalizability. We describe why an extension of the available evidence or generating new evidence is occasionally needed to address the increasingly diverse cohort of patients. Finally, we explore some of the tools used by basic scientists and clinicians to develop evidence and describe the ones we feel may be most beneficial.

Sudden cardiac death in haemodialysis patients: preventative options

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common cause of death in haemodialysis patients, accounting for 25% of all-cause mortality. There are many potential pathological precipitants as most patients with end-stage renal disease have structurally or functionally abnormal hearts. For example, at initiation of dialysis, 74% of patients have left ventricular hypertrophy. The pathophysiological and metabolic milieu of patients with end-stage renal disease, allied to the regular stresses of dialysis, may provide the trigger to a fatal cardiac event. Prevention of SCD can be seen as a legitimate target to improve survival in this patient group. In the general population, this is most effective by reducing the burden of ischaemic heart disease. However, the aetiology of SCD in haemodialysis patients appears to be different, with myocardial fibrosis, vascular calcification and autonomic dysfunction implicated as possible causes. Thus, the range of therapies is different to the general population. There are potential preventative measures emerging as our understanding of the underlying mechanisms progresses. This article aims to review the evidence for therapies to prevent SCD effective in the general population when applied to dialysis patients, as well as promising new treatments specific to this population group.

The Safety of Eplerenone in Hemodialysis Patients: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure, but the safety of these drugs in patients receiving dialysis is unclear. This study evaluated whether hyperkalemia and/or hypotension limited the use of eplerenone, a selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, in hemodialysis patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This was a randomized controlled trial of prevalent patients receiving hemodialysis at five Canadian centers. Participants were randomly allocated to 13 weeks of eplerenone titrated to 50 mg daily (n=77) or a matching placebo (n=77). The primary outcome was permanent discontinuation of the drug because of hyperkalemia or hypotension. Secondary outcomes included hyperkalemia, hypotension, and cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Seventy-five eplerenone-treated patients and 71 placebo-treated patients were included in the per protocol population. The primary outcome occurred in three patients (4.0%) in the eplerenone group and two (2.8%) in the placebo group, for an absolute risk difference of 1.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -4.7 to 7.1 percentage points). Eplerenone was interpreted as noninferior to placebo with respect to the primary outcome (i.e., a discontinuation rate for these reasons >10% was excluded). In the eplerenone group, nine patients (11.7%) developed hyperkalemia (potassium level >6.5 mEq/L), compared with two patients (2.6%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 20.2). There was no significant effect on predialysis or postdialysis BP.

CONCLUSION

Eplerenone increased the risk of hyperkalemia but did not result in an excess need to permanently discontinue the drug. Further trials are required to determine whether mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients receiving long-term dialysis.

Pleiotropic effects of angiotensin II blockers in hemodialysis patients: myth or reality?

Mechanistic studies suggest that angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may have pleiotropic effects on the cardiovascular system in hemodialysis patients. A new randomized trial by Peters et al. failed to show a benefit of irbesartan on biomarkers of arterial stiffness, left ventricular mass, and autonomic nerve function. Their findings suggest that, like in the general population and other disease states, in hemodialysis patients the type of antihypertensive drug is unlikely to be of major clinical relevance.

Short and Long-Term Effects of the Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Irbesartan on Intradialytic Central Hemodynamics: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled One-Year Intervention Trial (the SAFIR Study)

Background and Aim

Little is known about the tolerability of antihypertensive drugs during hemodialysis treatment. The present study evaluated the use of the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) irbesartan.

Design

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, one-year intervention trial.

Setting and Participants

Eighty-two hemodialysis patients with urine output >300 mL/day and dialysis vintage <1 year.

Intervention

Irbesartan/placebo 300 mg/day for 12 months administered as add-on to antihypertensive treatment using a predialytic systolic blood pressure target of 140 mmHg in all patients.

Outcomes and Measurements

Cardiac output, stroke volume, central blood volume, total peripheral resistance, mean arterial blood pressure, and frequency of intradialytic hypotension.

Results

At baseline, the groups were similar regarding age, comorbidity, blood pressure, antihypertensive medication, ultrafiltration volume, and dialysis parameters. Over the one-year period, predialytic systolic blood pressure decreased significantly, but similarly in both groups. Mean start and mean end cardiac output, stroke volume, total peripheral resistance, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure were stable and similar in the two groups, whereas central blood volume increased slightly but similarly over time. The mean hemodynamic response observed during a dialysis session was a drop in cardiac output, in stroke volume, in mean arterial pressure, and in central blood volume, whereas heart rate increased. Total peripheral resistance did not change significantly. Overall, this pattern remained stable over time in both groups and was uninfluenced by ARB treatment. The total number of intradialytic hypotensive episodes was (placebo/ARB) 50/63 (P = 0.4). Ultrafiltration volume, left ventricular mass index, plasma albumin, and change in intradialytic total peripheral resistance were significantly associated with intradialytic hypotension in a multivariate logistic regression analysis based on baseline parameters.

Conclusion

Use of the ARB irbesartan as an add-on to other antihypertensive therapy did not significantly affect intradialytic hemodynamics, neither in short nor long-term, and no significant increase in hypotensive episodes was seen.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00791830

Pro: Ambulatory blood pressure should be used in all patients on hemodialysis

In the adult population in general and among people with chronic kidney disease in particular, it is now well established that hypertension is a major driver of renal disease progression and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although the contribution of hypertension to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among patients on long-term dialysis continues to be debated, a major barrier to detect hypertension as a risk factor for cardiovascular events in these patients has been the inability to diagnose hypertension. Largely to blame has been the easy availability of pre-dialysis and post-dialysis blood pressure recordings in stark contrast to ambulatory blood pressure measurements in dialysis patients to accurately diagnose the presence or control of hypertension. It is increasingly becoming clear that out-of-office blood pressure recordings are superior to clinic recordings in making a diagnosis, assessing target organ damage, evaluating prognosis and managing patients with hypertension. In this debate, I have been asked to defend the position that ambulatory blood pressure recordings should be systematically applied to all patients on hemodialysis.

Sudden cardiac death in CKD patients

The risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is high in chronic kidney disease patients, and it increases with the progression of kidney function deterioration. The most common causes of SDC are the following: ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachyarrhythmia, tachycardia torsade de pointes, sustained ventricular fibrillation and bradyarrhythmia. Dialysis influences cardiovascular system and results in hemodynamic disturbances as well as electrolyte shifts altering myocardial electrophysiology. Studies suggest that this procedure exerts both detrimental (poor volume control can exacerbate hypertension and left ventricle hypertrophy) and beneficial effects (associated with fluid removal and subsequent decrease in left ventricle stretch). Dialysis-related vulnerability to serious arrhythmias is the result of sudden shifts in fluid status and electrolytes, particularly potassium, which alter the physiological milieu. Also Ca(2+) ions, in which concentration alters during dialysis, are of key importance in the contraction of vascular smooth muscle cells and cardiac myocytes, thus exerting significant effects on hemodynamics. Due to the fact that SCD occurs with similar frequency in peritoneal dialysis and in hemodialysis patients, it seems that end-stage renal disease factors are more important than the specific ones associated with dialysis type. The results of randomized trials suggested that hemodialysis patients may not derive the same benefit of cardiovascular disease therapy including beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors as the general population with normal kidney function. Noninvasive tests used to stratify SCD risk in HD patients have poor positive value, and thus, combining tests including HRV, baroreceptor sensitivity and effectiveness index as well as its function indices and heart rate turbulence should be implemented. There are only few large randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing the influence of cardioprotective medications or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in dialysis patients on life quality and survival, and their results are sometimes contradictory. The decision concerning treatment and/or ICD implantation in this group of patients should be made on the basis of careful assessment of individual risk factors. Moreover, due to the high hazard of cardiovascular mortality including SCD in dialysis patients, physicians should concentrate on the early selection of high-risk patients, monitoring them and introduction of preventive measures.

Antihypertensive Medications in End-Stage Renal Disease

Hypertension is almost universal in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and contributes to the substantial cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality observed in these patients. The management of blood pressure (BP) in ESRD is complicated by a number of factors, including missed dialysis treatments, intradialytic changes in BP, medication removal with dialysis, and poor correlation of BPs obtained in the dialysis unit with those at home and with CV outcomes. Control of extracellular volume with ultrafiltration and dietary sodium restriction represents the principal strategy to manage hypertension in ESRD, and antihypertensive medications are subsequently added if this strategy is inadequate. While reduction in BP with medication improves CV outcomes, few head-to-head clinical trials have been performed to firmly establish the superiority of one antihypertensive medication class over another. Therefore, individualization of therapy is necessary, and patient comorbidities must be considered. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and beta-blockers are reasonable first-line agents for most patients. ACE inhibitors and ARBs exert cardioprotective effects that are independent of BP reduction. Medications that are removed with dialysis may be preferred in patients who are prone to develop intradialytic hypotension. Intradialytic hypertension can be managed with challenging the patient's dry weight and using nondialyzable medications. Within a class of antihypertensive medications, there may be large variability in drug removal with dialysis, which must be considered upon medication selection. Studies demonstrate that even thrice-weekly dosing of medication after dialysis has robust BP-lowering effects, which may be a useful regimen in nonadherent patients.

Effect of lisinopril and atenolol on aortic stiffness in patients on hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Whether improvements in arterial compliance with BP lowering are because of BP reduction alone or if pleiotropic effects of antihypertensive agents contribute remains unclear. It was hypothesized that, among patients on hemodialysis, compared with a β-blocker (atenolol), a lisinopril-based therapy will better reduce arterial stiffness.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Among 200 participants of the Hypertension in Hemodialysis Patients Treated with Atenolol or Lisinopril Trial, 179 patients with valid assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity at baseline (89 patients randomly assigned to open-label lisinopril and 90 patients randomly assigned to atenolol three times a week after dialysis) were included in the secondary analysis. Among them, 109 patients had a valid pulse wave velocity measurement at 6 months. Monthly measured home BP was targeted to <140/90 mmHg by addition of antihypertensive drugs and dry weight adjustment. The difference between drugs in percentage change of aortic pulse wave velocity from baseline to 6 months was analyzed.

RESULTS

Contrary to the hypothesis, atenolol-based treatment induced greater reduction in aortic pulse wave velocity relative to lisinopril (between drug difference, 14.8%; 95% confidence interval, 1.5% to 28.5%; P=0.03). Reduction in 44-hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP was no different between groups (median [25th, 75th percentile]; atenolol: -21.5 [-37.7, -7.6] versus lisinopril: -15.8 [-28.8, -1.5] mmHg; P=0.27 for systolic BP; -14.1 [-22.6, -5.3] versus -10.9 [-18.4, -0.9] mmHg, respectively; P=0.30 for diastolic BP). Between-drug difference in change of aortic pulse wave velocity persisted after adjustments for age, sex, race, other cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline ambulatory systolic BP but disappeared after adjustment for change in ambulatory systolic BP (11.8%; 95% confidence interval, -2.3% to 25.9%; P=0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients on dialysis, atenolol was superior in improving arterial stiffness. However, differences between atenolol and lisinopril in improving aortic stiffness among patients on hemodialysis may be explained by BP-lowering effects of drugs.

Cardiovascular disease in CKD in 2014: new insights into cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an established independent risk factor for increased cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. During 2014, several research efforts focused on clarifying the complex pathophysiology, assessing the prognostic associations and improving the treatment of cardiovascular disease in patients with CKD.

The interplay between CKD, sudden cardiac death, and ventricular arrhythmias

CKD patients face an increased risk of cardiovascular disease mortality, and the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) increases as kidney function declines. Risk factors for SCD are poorly understood and understudied among CKD patients. In the general population, coronary heart disease-associated risk factors are the most important determinants of SCD risk, but among CKD patients, there is evidence that these factors play a much smaller role. Complex relationships between CKD-specific risk factors, structural heart disease, and arrhythmic triggers contribute to the high risk of SCD and ventricular arrhythmias and modulate the effectiveness of available therapies. This review examines recent data on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and mechanisms of SCD among CKD patients and examines current evidence regarding the use of pharmacologic and device-based therapies for management of SCD risk.