Albuminuria and masked uncontrolled hypertension in chronic kidney disease

Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD): Diagnosis, Classification, and Therapeutic Targets

Blood pressure (BP) in the office is often recorded without standardization of the technique of measurement. When office BP measurement is performed with a research-grade methodology, it can inform better therapeutic decisions. The reference-standard method of ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) together with the assessment of BP in the office enables the identification of white-coat and masked hypertension, facilitating the stratification of cardiorenal risk. Compared with general population, the prevalence of resistant hypertension is 2- to 3-fold higher among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The use of ABPM is mandatory in order to exclude the white-coat effect, a common cause of pseudoresistance, and confirm the diagnosis of true-resistant hypertension. After the premature termination of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial due to an impressive cardioprotective benefit of intensive BP-lowering, the 2017 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline reappraised the definition of hypertension and recommended a tighter BP target of <130/80 mm Hg for the majority of adults with a high cardiovascular risk profile, inclusive of patients with CKD. However, the benefit/risk ratio of intensive BP-lowering in particular subsets of patients with CKD (i.e., those with diabetes or more advanced CKD) continues to be debated. We explore the controversial issue of BP targets in CKD, providing a critical evaluation of the available clinical-trial evidence and guideline recommendations. We argue that the systolic BP target in CKD, if BP is measured correctly, should be <120 mm Hg.

Diagnostic value of urinary microprotein concentration for patients with negative urinary protein test results and positive urinary casts on microscopic examination

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the association between positive urinary casts on microscopic examination and urinary microprotein concentration in the case of negative urinary protein test results. This study also investigated the diagnostic value of urinary microprotein examination.

SUBJECTS

A total of 949 samples that were analyzed with a UF-1000i Urine Analyzer and returned cast alarm results were categorized into two groups, a positive and negative group, according to qualitative urinary protein sulfosalicylic acid test results. Then, 54 samples with negative protein test results but positive cast results according to microscopic examination were selected as the study group; 60 normal people with healthy physical examination results were selected as the control group. Both groups underwent urinary microprotein tests, including urinary microalbumin (mAlb), α1-microglobulin (A1M), transferrin (TRU), and immunoglobulin G (IgG). T tests were used to evaluate mean differences between groups and chi-square tests were used to calculate ratio differences between groups.

RESULTS

(a) Microscopic examinations of the positive and negative protein groups revealed no statistically significant difference in cast detection rate (P = .421). (b) Among the 54 samples in the study group, 37 were found to have abnormal casts, while in the remaining 17 samples, only hyaline casts were detected. (c) The detection levels of mAlb, A1M, and IgG in the study group were significantly higher than the control group (P values < .05).

CONCLUSION

Urinary microprotein test should be included in the re-examination rules for routine tests for patients with negative protein results and positive casts under microscopic examination.

Cuffless Blood Pressure Monitoring: Promises and Challenges

Current BP measurements are on the basis of traditional BP cuff approaches. Ambulatory BP monitoring, at 15- to 30-minute intervals usually over 24 hours, provides sufficiently continuous readings that are superior to the office-based snapshot, but this system is not suitable for frequent repeated use. A true continuous BP measurement that could collect BP passively and frequently would require a cuffless method that could be worn by the patient, with the data stored electronically much the same way that heart rate and heart rhythm are already done routinely. Ideally, BP should be measured continuously and frequently during diverse activities during both daytime and nighttime in the same subject by means of novel devices. There is increasing excitement for newer methods to measure BP on the basis of sensors and algorithm development. As new devices are refined and their accuracy is improved, it will be possible to better assess masked hypertension, nocturnal hypertension, and the severity and variability of BP. In this review, we discuss the progression in the field, particularly in the last 5 years, ending with sensor-based approaches that incorporate machine learning algorithms to personalized medicine.

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Phenotypes in Adults Taking Antihypertensive Medication with and without CKD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Recent guidelines recommend out-of-clinic BP measurements.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We compared the prevalence of BP phenotypes between 561 black patients, with and without CKD, taking antihypertensive medication who underwent ambulatory BP monitoring at baseline (between 2000 and 2004) in the Jackson Heart Study. CKD was defined as an albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g or eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Sustained controlled BP was defined by BP at goal both inside and outside of the clinic and sustained uncontrolled BP as BP above goal both inside and outside of the clinic. Masked uncontrolled hypertension was defined by controlled clinic-measured BP with uncontrolled out-of-clinic BP.

RESULTS

CKD was associated with a higher multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio for uncontrolled versus controlled clinic BP (prevalence ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.02) and sustained uncontrolled BP versus sustained controlled BP (prevalence ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.36). There were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of uncontrolled daytime or nighttime BP, nondipping BP, white-coat effect, and masked uncontrolled hypertension between participants with and without CKD after multivariable adjustment. After multivariable adjustment, reduced eGFR was associated with masked uncontrolled hypertension versus sustained controlled BP (prevalence ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.00), whereas albuminuria was associated with uncontrolled clinic BP (prevalence ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.60) and sustained uncontrolled BP versus sustained controlled BP (prevalence ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of BP phenotypes defined using ambulatory BP monitoring is high among adults with CKD taking antihypertensive medication.

Out-of-Clinic Sympathetic Activity Is Increased in Patients With Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension

Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is defined as controlled automated office blood pressure (BP; AOBP <135/85 mm Hg) in-clinic in patients receiving antihypertensive medication(s) but uncontrolled BP out-of-clinic by 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM; awake ≥135/85 mm Hg). We hypothesized that MUCH patients have greater out-of-clinic sympathetic activity compared with true controlled hypertensives. Patients being treated for hypertension were prospectively recruited after 3 or more consecutive clinic visits. All patients were evaluated by in-clinic automated office BP, plasma catecholamines, and spot-urine/plasma metanephrines. In addition, out-of-clinic 24-hour ABPM, 24-hour urinary for catecholamines and metanephrines was done. Out of 237 patients recruited, 169 patients had controlled in-clinic BP of which 156 patients had completed ABPM. Seventy-four were true controlled hypertensives, that is controlled by clinic automated office BP and by out-of-clinic ABPM. The remaining 82 were controlled by clinic automated office BP, but uncontrolled during out-of-clinic ABPM, indicative of MUCH. After exclusion of 4 patients because of inadequate or lack of 24-hour urinary collections, 72 true controlled hypertensive and 80 MUCH patients were analyzed. MUCH patients had significantly higher out-of-clinic BP variability and lower heart rate variability compared with true controlled hypertensives, as well as higher levels of out-of-clinic urinary catecholamines and metanephrines levels consistent with higher out-of-clinic sympathetic activity. In contrast, there was no difference in in-clinic plasma catecholamines and spot-urine/plasma levels of metanephrines between the 2 groups, consistent with similar levels of sympathetic activity while in clinic. MUCH patients have evidence of heightened out-of-clinic sympathetic activity compared with true controlled hypertensives, which may contribute to the development of MUCH.