Nebivolol reduces short-term blood pressure variability more potently than irbesartan in patients with intradialytic hypertension

Intradialytic Hypertension in Maintenance Hemodialysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current evidence regarding epidemiology, clinical pathophysiology, and latest therapeutic approaches for the management of intradialytic hypertension (IDH).

RECENT FINDINGS

IDH is a rather common complication of dialysis, affecting 10-15% of the patient population and significantly increasing the cardiovascular risk. Its pathophysiology involves multiple mechanisms, including volume and sodium overload, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) overactivity, endothelial dysfunction, and arterial stiffness. IDH management requires a combination of nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions. The first mainly focus on volume control through dry weight optimization and modification of dialysate sodium, as studies show that strict volume control or low dialysate sodium can significantly reduce intradialytic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Pharmacological interventions have also been examined in research studies. Beta-blockers, particularly those with vasodilatory properties, can effectively target mechanisms such as SNS overactivity and endothelial dysfunction, and have shown some promising results reducing both intradialytic and ambulatory BP. Other drugs classes have also been explored as potential therapeutic options for IDH management, though further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of these interventions. A tailored approach addressing both the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and individualized patient is warranted for improving BP control and cardiovascular outcomes in this high-risk population.

Dialysate sodium and short-term blood pressure variability in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized crossover study

Increased blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) is associated with high cardiovascular risk in hemodialysis. Patients with intradialytic hypertension (IDH) also exhibit an increased cardiovascular risk compared to hemodialysis patients without this condition. The impact of non-pharmacological BP-lowering interventions on BPV in this population remains unknown. This analysis evaluated the effect of low (137mEq/L) compared to standard (140mEq/L) dialysate sodium concentration on short-term BPV in patients with IDH. In a randomized cross-over manner, 29 IDH patients underwent 4 hemodialysis sessions with low (137mEq/L) followed by 4 sessions with standard (140mEq/L) dialysate sodium or vice versa. 48 h ambulatory BP measurement was performed from the start of the 4th session on each dialysate sodium. BPV indices during the 48 h, 24 h, day-time and night-time periods were calculated. Mean 48 h BP was 5.3/2.6 mmHg lower with low compared to standard dialysate sodium concentration, (p = 0.005/p = 0.007 respectively). All 48 h systolic BPV indices examined showed non-significant differences between low and standard dialysate sodium (SBP-SD: 16.99 ± 5.39 vs. 16.98 ± 4.33 mmHg, p = 0.982; SBP-wSD: 15.93 ± 5.02 vs. 16.12 ± 4.16 mmHg, p = 0.769; SBP-ARV: 11.99 ± 3.67 vs. 11.45 ± 3.35 mmHg, p = 0.392; SBP-CV: 12.36 ± 3.65 vs. 11.92 ± 3.18%, p = 0.302, with low vs. standard dialysate sodium, respectively). Diastolic BPV indices were numerically, but not statistically, lower with low dialysate sodium. Overall, significant differences were observed in some comparisons with a trend for lower BPV during day-time 2 and higher BVP during night-time 2 with low dialysate sodium. In conclusion, low dialysate sodium concentration does not affect BPV levels in patients with IDH. Future research should explore alternative interventions to reduce BP and BPV in this high-risk population.

Beta-blocker efficacy for intra- and interdialytic hypertension patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Intradialytic hypertension affects 5-15% of hemodialysis patients, yet relevant studies are relatively scarce. It is also associated with higher interdialytic blood pressure. Beta-blockers can be preferred as antihypertensive drugs due to their superior blood pressure control, decreased risk of cardiovascular events, improved endothelial cell function, and decreased noradrenaline levels. Through this study, beta-blocker antihypertensive effects in intra- and interdialytic hypertension were analyzed.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. We registered our PROSPERO protocol (Registration ID: CRD42023446184) and included relevant full-text clinical trials or RCTs from 2008 to 2023 with predetermined keywords and criteria from multiple databases including PUBMED, COCHRANE, SCOPUS, and citation searching. Seven eligible articles were included in this review study.

RESULTS

Four studies with 82 participants for intradialytic hypertension evaluation were included. Meta-analysis showed a decrease in SBP in intradialytic hypertensive patients after beta-blocker intervention, with a significant estimated mean difference of - 15.19 mmHg (P < 0.00001; 95% CI - 19.47 to - 10.91). Supporting previous data, SBP remains constant between pre- and post-dialysis with beta-blocker therapy, with an insignificant estimated mean difference of - 2.72 mmHg (P = 0.29; 95% CI - 7.80 to 2.36). Whereas five studies with 142 participants were included for interdialytic hypertension evaluation. Meta-analysis shows a significant decrease in SBP before to after therapy, with an estimated mean difference of - 10.92 (P < 0.0001; 95% CI - 16.33 to - 5.51).

CONCLUSION

Beta-blocker treatment resulted in significant reductions in post-hemodialysis systolic blood pressure among intra- and interdialytic hypertensive patients.

Kidney transplantation and kidney donation do not affect short-term blood pressure variability

PURPOSE

Blood pressure variability (BPV) is an independent cardiovascular risk factor in CKD. Kidney transplantation (KTx) is associated with improved BP levels for kidney transplant recipient (KTRs), without evoking significant changes in donors. The aim of this study was to assess the short- and mid-time effects of KTx and donation on short-term BPV in KTRs and their respective living kidney donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty KTRs and their respective donors were evaluated with 24-h ABPM (Mobil-O-Graph-NG) at baseline (1 month before), 3-months and 12-months after KTx. Standard-deviation (SD), weighted-SD (wSD), coefficient-of-variation (CV), average-real-variability (ARV) and variability independent of mean (VIM) for SBP/DBP were calculated with validated formulas.

RESULTS

All 24-h systolic and diastolic BPV indexes studied did not change significantly from baseline to 3-month (SBP-wSD: 12.8 ± 3.0 vs 13.2 ± 3.4 mmHg, p = 0.608; SBP-ARV: 10.3 ± 2.4 vs 10.8 ± 2.6 mmHg, p = 0.463) and 12-month evaluation (SBP-wSD 12.8 ± 3.0 vs 12.1 ± 2.8; p = 0.424 and SBP-ARV: 10.3 ± 2.4 vs 10.2 ± 2.5; p = 0.615) after kidney transplantation in the KTRs.In kidney donors, all 24-h systolic BPV indices displayed a trend towards higher values at 3 months compared to baseline, but without reaching statistical significance (SBP-wSD: 12.2 ± 2.8 vs 13.6 ± 4.2 mmHg, p = 0.107 and SBP-ARV: 10.1 ± 2.1 vs 11.2 ± 3.1 mmHg, p = 0.099), the levels of 24-h systolic SBP indices at 12-months were almost identical to baseline values. 24-h diastolic BPV indices at 3-month and 12-month evaluation were similar to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Short-term BPV did not change significantly 3 and 12 months after kidney transplantation/donation neither in KTRs nor in living kidney donors. Longitudinal studies examining associations of BPV with adverse outcomes in these individuals are needed.

Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Perspectives of Intradialytic Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Individuals with end-stage renal disease on chronic hemodialysis (HD) may encounter numerous HD-associated complications, including intradialytic hypertension (IDHYPER). Although blood pressure (BP) follows a predictable course in the post-HD period, BP levels during the session may vary across the individuals. Typically, a decline in BP is noted during HD, but a significant proportion of patients exhibit a paradoxical elevation.

SUMMARY

Several studies have been conducted to understand the complexity of IDHYPER, but much remains to be elucidated in the future. This review article aimed to present the current evidence regarding the proposed definitions, the pathophysiologic background, the extent and clinical implications of IDHYPER, as well as the possible therapeutic options that have emerged from clinical studies.

KEY MESSAGES

IDHYPER is noted in approximately 15% of individuals undergoing HD. Several definitions have been proposed, with a systolic BP rise >10 mm Hg from pre- to post-dialysis in the hypertensive range in at least four out of six consecutive HD treatments being suggested by the latest Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes. Concerning its pathophysiology, extracellular fluid overload is a crucial determinant, with endothelial dysfunction, sympathetic nervous system overdrive, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation, and electrolyte alterations being important contributors. Although its association with ambulatory BP in the interdialytic period is controversial, IDHYPER is associated with adverse cardiovascular events and mortality. Moving to its management, the antihypertensive drugs of choice should ideally be nondialyzable with proven cardiovascular and mortality benefits. Finally, rigorous clinical and objective assessment of extracellular fluid volume is essential. Volume-overloaded patients should be instructed about the importance of sodium restriction, while physicians ought to alter HD settings toward a greater dry weight reduction. The use of a low-sodium dialysate and isothermic HD could also be considered on a case-by-case basis since no randomized evidence is currently available.

Sex-related short-term blood pressure variability differences in kidney transplant recipients

OBJECTIVE

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) display higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than the general population. Increased short-term blood pressure variability (BPV) is associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD). The aim of this study is to investigate sex differences in short-term BPV in KTRs.

METHODS

In total, 136 male and 69 female KTRs with valid 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring were included in this analysis. Systolic and diastolic BPV indices [SD, weighted SD (wSD), coefficient of variation (CV), average real variability (ARV) and variability independent of the mean (VIM)] were calculated with validated formulas for the 24 h, daytime and nighttime periods.

RESULTS

Age, time from transplantation surgery and history of major comorbidities did not differ between men and women. During the 24-h period, systolic BPV indices did not differ between men and women (SBP-ARV: 9.4 ± 2.2 vs. 9.9 ± 2.5; P = 0.212). During the daytime period, SBP-CV and SBP-VIM were significantly higher in females compared with male participants (SBP-CV: 9.9 ± 2.4 vs. 11 ± 3.1%; P = 0.022 and SBP-VIM: 12.6 ± 3.0 vs 14.2 ± 3.9; P = 0.008); daytime SBP-SD and SBP-ARV, and all studied indexes during nighttime did not differ between groups. No significant between-group differences in 24 h and daytime diastolic BPV indices were detected. Nighttime DBP-CV was marginally higher in men (12.0 ± 3.6 vs. 11.4 ± 4.0; P = 0.053); the rest nighttime diastolic BPV indices measured were also nonsignificantly higher in men.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, 24-h systolic and diastolic BPV parameters did not differ between male and female KTRs, but short-term BPV over the respective day- and nighttime periods showed different trends in men and women. Further studies are needed to examine possible differences in long-term BPV in KTRs.

Management of intradialytic hypertension: current evidence and future perspectives

Intradialytic hypertension (IDH), that is, a paradoxical rise in blood pressure (BP) during or immediately after a hemodialysis session, affects approximately 10-15% of the hemodialysis population. It is currently recognized as a phenomenon of major clinical significance as recent studies have shown that BP elevation extends to the whole interdialytic interval and associates with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The pathophysiology of IDH is complex involving volume and sodium overload, endothelial dysfunction, excess renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system activation, and other mechanisms. For several years, there was a scarcity of studies regarding IDH treatment; recently, however, several attempts to examine the effect of nonpharmacological and pharmacological measures on BP levels in IDH are made. This review attempts to summarize this latest evidence in the field of management of IDH and discuss areas for future research.

Dapagliflozin Does Not Affect Short-Term Blood Pressure Variability in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Increased blood pressure variability (BPV) is associated with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors decrease the incidence of cardiovascular events, renal events, and death in this population. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of dapagliflozin on short-term BPV in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 85 patients with T2DM. Subjects were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo for 12 weeks. All participants underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring with Mobil-O-Graph-NG device at baseline and study-end. SD, weighted SD (wSD), coefficient of variation, average real variability (ARV), and variation independent of mean were calculated for the 24-hour, daytime and nighttime periods.

RESULTS

Dapagliflozin reduced 24-hour brachial BP compared with placebo. From baseline to study-end 24-hour brachial BPV indexes did not change with dapagliflozin (SBP-ARV: 11.51 ± 3.45 vs. 11.05 ± 3.35; P = 0.326, SBP-wSD: 13.59 ± 3.60 vs. 13.48 ± 3.33; P = 0.811) or placebo (SBP-ARV: 11.47 ± 3.63 vs. 11.05 ± 3.00; P = 0.388, SBP-wSD: 13.85 ± 4.38 vs. 13.97 ± 3.87; P = 0.308). Similarly, no significant changes in BPV indexes for daytime and nighttime were observed in any group. At study-end, no between-group differences were observed for any BPV index. Deltas (Δ) of all indexes during follow-up were minimal and not different between groups (SBP-wSD: dapagliflozin: -0.11 ± 3.05 vs. placebo: 0.12 ± 4.20; P = 0.227).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to evaluate the effects of an SGLT-2 inhibitor on short-term BPV in T2DM, showing no effect of dapagliflozin on all BPV indexes studied.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

Trial Number NCT02887677.

Nebivolol is more effective than atenolol for blood pressure variability attenuation and target organ damage prevention in L-NAME hypertensive rats

β-Adrenergic blockers are no longer recommended as first-line therapy due to the reduced cardioprotection of traditional β-blockers compared with other antihypertensive drugs. It is unknown whether third-generation β-blockers share the limitations of traditional β-blockers. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of nebivolol or atenolol on central and peripheral systolic blood pressure (SBP) and its variability and target organ damage (TOD) in N-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) hypertensive rats. Male Wistar rats were treated with L-NAME for 8 weeks together with oral administration of nebivolol 30 mg/kg (n = 8), atenolol 90 mg/kg (n = 8), or vehicle (n = 8). The control group was composed of vehicle-treated Wistar rats. SBP and its variability, as well as echocardiographic parameters, were assessed during the last 2 weeks of treatment. Tissue levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), and histopathological parameters were evaluated in the left ventricle and aorta. Nebivolol had a greater ability than atenolol to decrease central SBP and mid-term and short-term blood pressure variability (BPV) in L-NAME rats. Echocardiographic analysis showed that nebivolol was more effective than atenolol on E/A wave ratio normalization. Compared with atenolol treatment, nebivolol had a greater protective effect on different TOD markers, inducing a decrease in collagen deposition and a reduction in the proinflammatory cytokines IL-6 and TNF-α in the left ventricle and aorta. Our findings suggest that the adverse hemodynamic profile and the reduced cardiovascular protection reported with traditional β-blockers must not be carried forward to third-generation β-blockers.

The Effects of Nebivolol and Irbesartan on Ambulatory Aortic Blood Pressure and Arterial Stiffness in Hemodialysis Patients with Intradialytic Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Intradialytic hypertension occurs in 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but the responsible mechanisms remain unknown. This study examined the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on ambulatory central blood pressure (BP), arterial stiffness, and wave-reflection parameters in patients with intradialytic hypertension.

METHODS

This is a prespecified analysis of a single-blind, randomized, cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients with intradialytic hypertension. Patients were randomized to nebivolol 5 mg followed byirbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. In a non-randomized manner, the first half of the patients (n = 19) received a single drug dose 1 h prior to dialysis session and the remaining received the drugs for a whole week before the evaluation. Ambulatory central BP, arterial stiffness, and wave-reflection parameters were estimated with Mobil-O-Graph NG device, during a midweek dialysis day.

RESULTS

Intake of a single dose of nebivolol or irbesartan resulted in lower postdialysis central systolic BP (c-SBP) (baseline: 140.9 ± 15.4; nebivolol: 130.3 ± 19.5, p = 0.009; irbesartan: 127.3 ± 24.4 mm Hg, p = 0.007). Single-dose nebivolol also produced marginally lower 24-h c-SBP (p = 0.064) and lower 24-h central diastolic BP (c-DBP) (p = 0.029). Weekly administration of both drugs reduced postdialysis c-SBP (baseline: 144.1 ± 15.3; nebivolol: 131.8 ± 14.1, p = 0.014; irbesartan: 126.4 ± 17.8, p = 0.001) and 24-h c-SBP and c-DBP (baseline: 135.5 ± 10.3/91.9 ± 9.2; nebivolol: 126.4 ± 8.4/86.6 ± 7.2, p < 0.001/p = 0.002; irbesartan: 128.7 ± 11.6/87.0 ± 9.4, p = 0.061/p = 0.051 mm Hg). Single-dose intake of both drugs did not affect heart rate-adjusted augmentation index [AIx(75)], but decreased postdialysis pulse wave velocity (PWV). Importantly, weekly administration of both drugs reduced 24-h PWV (baseline: 10.0 ± 2.5; nebivolol: 9.7 ± 2.5, p = 0.012; irbesartan: 9.7 ± 2.7, p = 0.041). In between drug-group comparisons, no significant differences were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first randomized evaluation on the effects of pharmacological interventions on central BP and PWV in patients with intradialytic hypertension. Weekly administration of both nebivolol and irbesartan reduced 24-h central BP and PWV, but not AIx(75).

[Blood pressure variability in hemodialysis patients: prognostic significance and treatment possibilities]

A present review is devoted to the current state of the problem of blood pressure variability (BPV) in hemodialysis patients. The BPV classification and clinical significance of BPV metrics are discussed. The results of cohort and randomized studies on the high BPV influence on outcomes in hemodialysis patients, as well as on the possibilities of antihypertensive drugs in the treatment of high BPV in dialysis patients, are presented.

Lung Ultrasound-Guided Dry-Weight Reduction in Hemodialysis Patients Does Not Affect Short-Term Blood Pressure Variability

BACKGROUND

Increased short-term blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) in hemodialysis is associated with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Studies on the impact of BP-lowering interventions on BPV are scarce. This study examined the effect of dry-weight reduction with a lung ultrasound-guided strategy on short-term BPV in hemodialysis patients with hypertension.

METHODS

This is a prespecified analysis of a randomized clinical trial in 71 hemodialysis patients with hypertension, assigned in a 1:1 ratio in the active group, following a strategy for dry-weight reduction guided by pre-hemodialysis lung ultrasound and the control group following standard-of-care treatment. All patients underwent 48-hour ambulatory BP monitoring at baseline and after 8 weeks. BPV was calculated with validated formulas for the 48-hour interval and the 2 daytime and nighttime periods.

RESULTS

Dry-weight changes were -0.71 ± 1.39 in active vs. +0.51 ± 0.98 kg in the control group (P < 0.001), generating a between-group difference of 5.9/3.5 mm Hg (P < 0.05) in 48-hour BP at study end. All brachial BPV indices [SD, weighted SD, coefficient of variation, and average real variability (ARV)] did not change significantly from baseline to study end in the active [systolic blood pressure (SBP)-ARV: 12.58 ± 3.37 vs. 11.91 ± 3.13, P = 0.117; diastolic blood pressure (DBP)-ARV: 9.14 ± 1.47 vs. 8.80 ± 1.96, P = 0.190] or control (SBP-ARV: 11.33 ± 2.76 vs. 11.07 ± 2.51, P = 0.544; DBP-ARV: 8.38 ± 1.50 vs. 8.15 ± 1.49, P = 0.295) group (between-group comparison P = 0.211/0.117). Aortic BPV indices followed a similar pattern. Likewise, no significant changes in BPV indices for the daytime and nighttime periods were noted in both groups during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to evaluate the effects of a nonpharmacological intervention on short-term BPV in hemodialysis, showing no effect of dry-weight reduction on BPV, despite BP decrease.