The effect of an L/N-type calcium channel blocker on intradialytic blood pressure in intradialytic hypertensive patients

Bilateral Nephrectomy for Resistant Hypertension and Secondary Aldosteronism in a Hemodialysis Patient: A Case Report

A 42-year-old Japanese woman with end-stage renal failure due to hypertension presented with a systolic blood pressure of 160-200 mmHg despite treatment with 4 different antihypertensive agents. The plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) and plasma renin activity (PRA) were elevated. Adrenal vein sampling suggested bilateral excessive aldosterone secretion, whereas adrenocortical scintigraphy showed right-dominant accumulation. Open bilateral nephrectomy and right adrenalectomy improved the systolic blood pressure, PAC, and PRA. A pathological examination revealed zona glomerulosa hyperplasia but not microaldosteronoma. This report shows that bilateral nephrectomy, not unilateral adrenalectomy, is a potentially effective treatment option for resistant hypertension with an elevated renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in hemodialysis patients.

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.

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.

Calcium channel blockers for people with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are used to manage hypertension which is highly prevalent among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The treatment for hypertension is particularly challenging in people undergoing dialysis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of calcium channel blockers in patients with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 27 April 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any type of CCB with other CCB, different doses of the same CCB, other antihypertensives, control or placebo were included. The minimum study duration was 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 13 studies (24 reports) randomising 1459 participants treated with long-term haemodialysis. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis (622 participants). No studies were performed in children or in those undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear to high across most domains. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in eight and one studies, respectively. Two studies reported low risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators, and outcome assessment was blinded in 10 studies. Three studies were at low risk of attrition bias, eight studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and five studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. No events were reported for cardiovascular death in any of the comparisons. Other side effects were rarely reported and studies were not designed to measure costs. Five studies (451 randomised adults) compared dihydropyridine CCBs to placebo or no treatment. Dihydropyridine CCBs may decrease predialysis systolic (1 study, 39 participants: MD -27.00 mmHg, 95% CI -43.33 to -10.67; low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure level (2 studies, 76 participants; MD -13.56 mmHg, 95% CI -19.65 to -7.48; I² = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. Dihydropyridine CCBs may make little or no difference to occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (2 studies, 287 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.15; I² = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. Other side effects were not reported. Eight studies (1037 randomised adults) compared dihydropyridine CCBs to other antihypertensives. Dihydropyridine CCBs may make little or no difference to predialysis systolic (4 studies, 180 participants: MD 2.44 mmHg, 95% CI -3.74 to 8.62; I² = 0%, low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure (4 studies, 180 participants: MD 1.49 mmHg, 95% CI -2.23 to 5.21; I² = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to other antihypertensives. There was no evidence of a difference in the occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (1 study, 92 participants: RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.79; very low certainty evidence) between dihydropyridine CCBs to other antihypertensives. Other side effects were not reported. Dihydropyridine CCB may make little or no difference to predialysis systolic (1 study, 40 participants: MD -4 mmHg, 95% CI -11.99 to 3.99; low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure (1 study, 40 participants: MD -3.00 mmHg, 95% CI -7.06 to 1.06; low certainty evidence) compared to non-dihydropyridine CCB. There was no evidence of a difference in other side effects (1 study, 40 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.36; very low certainty evidence) between dihydropyridine CCB and non-dihydropyridine CCB. Intradialytic hypotension was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of CCBs over other antihypertensives on predialysis blood pressure levels and intradialytic hypotension among people with CKD who required haemodialysis were uncertain. Effects of CCBs on other side effects and cardiovascular death also remain uncertain. Dihydropyridine CCBs may decrease predialysis systolic and diastolic blood pressure level compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies were identified in children or peritoneal dialysis. Available studies have not been designed to measure the effects on costs. The shortcomings of the studies were that they recruited very few participants, had few events, had very short follow-up periods, some outcomes were not reported, and the reporting of outcomes such as changes in blood pressure was not done uniformly across studies. Well-designed RCTs, conducted in both adults and children with CKD requiring both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, evaluating both dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine CCBs against other antihypertensives are required. Future research should be focused on outcomes relevant to patients (including death and cardiovascular disease), blood pressure changes, risk of side effects and healthcare costs to assist decision-making in clinical practice.

Comparison of Efficacies of Commonly Used Hypertension Treatment Modalities: A Retrospective Study of 1900 Participants in a Hypertension Clinic

BACKGROUND Although various antihypertensive medications are available, some hypertensive patients have uncontrolled blood pressures, especially in the clinic. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacies of various antihypertensive therapies in our hypertension (HTN) clinic (monotherapy vs. combination therapy, fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus free equivalent combination (FEC), and diuretics versus non-diuretics. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this retrospective study, patients at the HTN clinic of the Third Xiangya Hospital with primary hypertension were enrolled from June 2016 to February 2017. Data on participants' basic characteristics, blood pressure data, and treatment modalities were collected. The proportions of participants attaining target blood pressure after treatment with antihypertensive modalities were calculated and compared. RESULTS Among 1900 participants, combination therapy had a better control efficacy than monotherapy (P<0.0005). When HTN was treated by 2 kinds of drugs, FEC was used much more frequently than FDC (P<0.0005). In grade 3 HTN, FDC had a higher control rate (P=0.002). If more than 2 kinds of drugs were used, FDC+OTHER had a slightly higher control rate in grade 2 and 3 (42.1% vs. 38.5%, P=0.724; 36.2% vs. 31.0%, P=0.526, respectively). Therapies with diuretics had better control rates than those without diuretics (43.1% vs. 36.9%, P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS In our clinic, FEC was prescribed more often than FDC. When blood pressure is significantly elevated, especially at levels 2 or 3, FDC seems to have a better control rate than FEC. Therapies with diuretics controlled HTN more efficiently.

Blood pressure targets and pharmacotherapy for hypertensive patients on hemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is highly prevalent in patients with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis and is often not well controlled. Blood pressure (BP) levels before and after hemodialysis have a U-shaped relationship with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Although antihypertensive drugs are recommended for patients in whom BP cannot be controlled appropriately by non-pharmacological interventions, large-scale randomized controlled clinical trials are lacking.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the pharmacotherapy used in hypertensive patients on dialysis, primarily focusing on reports published since 2000. An electronic search of MEDLINE was conducted using relevant key search terms, including 'hypertension', 'pharmacotherapy', 'dialysis', 'kidney disease', and 'antihypertensive drug'. Systematic and narrative reviews and original investigations were retrieved in our research.

EXPERT OPINION

When a drug is administered to patients on dialysis, the comorbidities and characteristics of each drug, including its dialyzability, should be considered. Pharmacological lowering of BP in hypertensive patients on hemodialysis is associated with improvements in mortality. β-blockers should be considered first-line agents and calcium channel blockers as second-line therapy. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors have not shown superiority to other antihypertensive drugs for patients on hemodialysis.