Blood pressure variability is increasing from the first to the second day of the interdialytic interval in hemodialysis patients

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.

Low dialysate sodium and 48-h ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized crossover study

BACKGROUND

Intradialytic hypertension (IDH) is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality. Patients with IDH exhibit higher 48-h blood pressure (BP) levels than patients without this condition. Volume and sodium excess are considered a major factor contributing in the development of this phenomenon. This study evaluated the effect of low (137 mEq/L) compared with standard (140 mEq/L) dialysate sodium concentration on 48-h BP in patients with IDH.

METHODS

In this randomized, single-blind, crossover study, 29 patients with IDH underwent four hemodialysis sessions with low (137 mEq/L) followed by four sessions with standard (140 mEq/L) dialysate sodium, or vice versa. Mean 48-h BP, pre-/post-dialysis and intradialytic BP, pre-dialysis weight, interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and lung ultrasound B-lines were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean 48-h systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) were significantly lower with low compared with standard dialysate sodium concentration (137.6 ± 17.0/81.4 ± 13.7 mmHg with low vs 142.9 ± 14.5/84.0 ± 13.9 mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, P = .005/P = .007, respectively); SBP/DBP levels were also significantly lower during the 44-h and different 24-h periods. Low dialysate sodium significantly reduced post-dialysis (SBP/DBP: 150.3 ± 22.3/91.2 ± 15.1 mmHg with low vs 166.6 ± 17.3/94.5 ± 14.9 mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, P < .001/P = .134, respectively) and intradialytic (141.4 ± 18.0/85.0 ± 13.4 mmHg with low vs 147.5 ± 13.6/88.1 ± 12.5 mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, P = .034/P = .013, respectively) BP compared with standard dialysate sodium. Pre-dialysis weight, IDWG and pre-dialysis B lines were also significantly decreased with low dialysate sodium.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dialysate sodium concentration significantly reduced 48-h ambulatory BP compared with standard dialysate sodium in patients with IDH. These findings support low dialysate sodium as a major non-pharmacologic approach for BP management in patients with IDH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov study number NCT05430438.

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.

Accuracy of 24 h ambulatory blood pressure recordings for diagnosing high 44 h blood pressure in hemodialysis: a diagnostic test study

Hypertension is highly prevalent in hemodialysis patients. Ambulatory-BP-monitoring(ABPM) during the 44 h interdialytic interval is recommended for hypertension diagnosis and management in these subjects. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of fixed 24 h ABPM recordings with 44 h BP in hemodialysis patients. 242 Greek hemodialysis patients that underwent valid 48 h ABPM(Mobil-O-Graph NG device) were included in the analysis. We used 44 h BP as reference method and tested the accuracy of the following BP metrics: 1st 24 h without HD period (20 h-1st), 1st 24 h including HD period (24 h-1st) and 2nd 24 h(24 h-2nd). All studied metrics showed strong correlations with 44 h SBP/DBP (20 h-1st: r = 0.973/0.978, 24 h-1st: r = 0.964/0.972 and 24 h-2nd: r = 0.978/0.977, respectively). In Bland-Altman analysis, small between-method differences (-1.70, -1.19 and +1.45 mmHg) with good 95% limits-of agreement([-10.83 to 7.43], [-11.12 to 8.74] and [-6.33 to 9.23] mmHg, respectively) for 20 h-1st, 24 h-1st and 24 h-2nd SBP were observed. The sensitivity/specificity and κ-statistic for diagnosing 44 h SBP ≥ 130 mmHg were high for 20 h-1st SBP(87.2%/96.0%, κ-statistic = 0.817), 24 h-1st SBP(88.7%/96.0%, κ-statistic = 0.833) and 24 h-2nd SBP (95.0%/88.1%, κ-statistic = 0.837). Similar observations were made for DBP. In ROC-analyses, all studied BP metrics showed excellent performance with high Area-Under-the- Curve values (20 h-1st: 0.983/0.992; 24 h-1st: 0.984/0.987 and 24 h-2nd: 0.982/0.989 for SBP/DBP respectively). Fixed 24 h ABPM recordings during either the first or the second day of interdialytic interval have high accuracy and strong agreement with 44 h BP in hemodialysis patients. Thus, ABPM recordings of either the first or the second interdialytic day could be used for hypertension diagnosis and management in these subjects.

Association of intradialysis blood sodium level, blood pressure variability, and hydration status with hemodialysis-related headache: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To identify primary factors contributing to hemodialysis-related headache (HRH) in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients.

METHODS

Adult outpatients receiving MHD were prospectively enrolled from a hemodialysis (HD) center of a tertiary hospital in China. Twelve dialysis sessions were successively monitored for each patient. HRH is defined as having at least three headache episodes that begin during HD and resolve within 72 h of HD session completion. Blood gas analysis during headache episodes and body composition analysis after dialysis were conducted. Hour-to-hour vital sign variability during dialysis was assessed using the metric of average real variability (ARV). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore the factors triggering HRH.

RESULTS

A total of 95 Chinese MHD patients were enrolled, with 92 patients (60.9% were males) included in the final analysis. The mean age of the 92 patients was 59.3 ± 17.5 years, and the median dialysis vintage was 27.1 (12-46.2) months. Among them, 12 patients (13%) complained of 42 headache attacks, and eight (8.7%) were diagnosed with HRH. For eight patients with HRH, headache occurred 100.3 ± 69.5 min after the start of dialysis, with a mean VAS score of 4.3 ± 1 points. The quality of headaches was dull (six patients), pulsating (one patient), or stabbing pain (one patient); all the headaches were bilateral, with one having concomitant vomiting. The intradialysis headache duration and the whole headache duration were 98.8 ± 68.1 and 120 (65-217.5) minutes, respectively. Younger age (OR = 0.844, 95% CI 0.719-0.991, p = 0.039), decreased blood sodium level (OR = 0.309 in the range of 133-142 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.111-0.856, p = 0.024), increased ARV of intradialysis systolic blood pressure (OR = 3.067, 95% CI 1.006-9.348, p = 0.049) and ratio of overhydration to dry weight (OR = 1.990, 95% CI 1.033-3.832, p = 0.040) were found to be independent risk factors for HRH.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested a significant attribution of blood sodium, hydration status and blood pressure variability to HRH.

Association of Intradialytic Hypertension with Future Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients: Effects of Ambulatory Blood Pressure

INTRODUCTION

Intradialytic hypertension (IDHTN) is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Patients with IDHTN have higher 44-h blood pressure (BP) than patients without this condition. Whether the excess risk in these patients is due to the BP rise during dialysis per se or on elevated 44-h BP or other comorbid conditions is uncertain. This study evaluated the association of IDHTN with cardiovascular events and mortality and the influence of ambulatory BP and other cardiovascular risk factors on these associations.

METHODS

242 hemodialysis patients with valid 48-h ABPM (Mobil-O-Graph-NG) were followed for a median of 45.7 months. IDHTN was defined as: systolic BP (SBP) rise ≥10 mm Hg from pre- to post-dialysis and post-dialysis SBP ≥150 mm Hg. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; the secondary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, heart failure hospitalization, coronary or peripheral revascularization.

RESULTS

Cumulative freedom from both the primary and secondary endpoint was significantly lower for IDHTN patients (logrank-p = 0.048 and 0.022, respectively), corresponding to higher risks for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.566; 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.001, 2.450]) and the composite cardiovascular outcome (HR = 1.675; 95% CI [1.071, 2.620]) in these individuals. However, the observed associations lost statistical significance after adjustment for 44-h SBP (HR = 1.529; 95% CI [0.952, 2.457] and HR = 1.388; 95% CI [0.866, 2.225], respectively). In the final model after additional adjustment for 44-h SBP, interdialytic weight gain, age, history of coronary artery disease, heart failure, diabetes, and 44-h pulse wave velocity, the association of IDHTN with the outcomes was also not significant and the respective HRs were 1.377 (95% CI [0.836, 2.268]) and 1.451 (95% CI [0.891, 2.364]).

CONCLUSIONS

IDHTN patients had higher risk for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes but this risk is at least partly confounded by the elevated BP levels during the interdialytic period.

Peridialytic and intradialytic blood pressure metrics are not valid estimates of 44-h ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension

PURPOSE

In contrast to peridialytic blood pressure (BP), intradialytic and home BP measurements are accurate metrics of ambulatory BP load in hemodialysis patients. This study assessed the agreement of peridialytic, intradialytic, and scheduled interdialytic recordings with 44-h BP in a distinct hemodialysis population, patients with intradialytic hypertension (IDH).

METHODS

This study included 45 IDH patients with valid 48-h ABPM and 197 without IDH. With 44-h BP used as reference method, we tested the accuracy of the following BP metrics: Pre- and post-dialysis, mean and median intradialytic, mean intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis, and scheduled interdialytic BP (out-of-dialysis day: mean of 8:00am/8:00 pm readings).

RESULTS

In IDH patients, peridialytic and intradialytic BP metrics showed at best moderate correlations, while averaged interdialytic SBP/DBP exhibited strong correlation (r = 0.882/r = 0.855) with 44-h SBP/DBP. Bland-Altman plots showed large between-method-difference for peri- and intradialytic-BP, but only + 0.7 mmHg between-method difference and good 95% limits of agreement for averaged interdialytic SBP. The sensitivity/specificity and κ-statistic for diagnosing 44-h SBP ≥ 130 mmHg were low for pre-dialysis (72.5/40.0%, κ-statistic = 0.074) and post-dialysis (90.0/0.0%, κ-statistic = - 0.110), mean intradialytic (85.0/40.0%, κ-statistic = 0.198), median intradialytic (85.0/60.0%, κ-statistic = 0.333), and intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis SBP (85.0/20.0%, κ-statistic = 0.043). Averaged interdialytic SBP showed high sensitivity/specificity (97.5/80.0%) and strong agreement (κ-statistic = 0.775). In ROC analyses, scheduled interdialytic SBP/DBP had the highest AUC (0.967/0.951), sensitivity (90.0/88.0%), and specificity (100.0/90.0%).

CONCLUSION

In IDH patients, only averaged scheduled interdialytic but not pre- and post-dialysis, nor intradialytic BP recordings show reasonable agreement with ABPM. Interdialytic BP recordings only could be used for hypertension diagnosis and management in these subjects.

Ambulatory central BP and arterial stiffness in patients with and without intradialytic hypertension

BACKGROUND

Increased arterial stiffness is suggested to be involved in the pathogenesis of intradialytic-hypertension (IDH). Ambulatory pulse-wave-velocity (PWV) is an independent predictor for all-cause-mortality in haemodialysis and its prognostic power is better than office PWV. This is the first study examining ambulatory central blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness parameters in patients with and without IDH.

METHODS

This study examined 45 patients with IDH (SBP rise ≥10 mmHg from pre- to post-dialysis and post-dialysis SBP ≥150 mmHg) in comparison with 197 patients without IDH. All participants underwent 48-h ABPM with Mobil-O-Graph-NG; parameters of central haemodynamics, wave reflection and PWV were estimated.

RESULTS

Age, dialysis vintage and interdialytic weight gain did not differ between-groups. IDH patients had higher 48-h cSBP (131.7 ± 16.2 vs. 119.2 ± 15.2 mmHg, p < 0.001), 48-h cDBP (86.7 ± 12.7 vs. 79.6 ± 11.5 mmHg, p < 0.001) and 48-h cPP (45.5 ± 10.4 vs. 39.8 ± 10.0 mmHg, p = 0.001) compared to patients without IDH. Similarly, during day- and nighttime periods, cSBP/cDBP and cPP levels were higher in IDH-patients compared to non-IDH. Forty-eight-hour augmentation pressure and index, but not AIx(75) were higher in IDH patients; 48-h PWV (10.0 ± 2.0 vs. 9.2 ± 2.1 m/s, p = 0.017) was significantly higher in patients with IDH. The two study groups displayed different trajectories in central BP and PWV over the course of the recording; IDH patients had steadily high values of the above variables during the 2 days of the interdialytic-interval, whereas non-IDH patients showed a gradual elevation, with significant increases from the 1st to 2nd 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

IDH patients have significantly higher levels of ambulatory central BP and arterial stiffness parameters and a different course over the 48-h period compared with non-IDH patients. Increased arterial stiffness could be a prominent factor associated with the high burden of cardiovascular disease in this population.

Effect of patient gender on short-term blood pressure variability in hemodialysis patients

Increased blood pressure variability (BPV) is strongly associated with cardiovascular events in end-stage kidney disease patients. Male hemodialysis patients present higher cardiovascular risk compared with females. The aim of this study is to investigate sex differences in short-term BPV in hemodialysis patients. 129 male and 91 female hemodialysis patients that underwent 48-h ABPM were included in this analysis. Standard deviation (SD), weighted SD (wSD), coefficient of variation (CV), and average real variability (ARV) of SBP and DBP were calculated with validated formulas. Age, dialysis vintage and history of major comorbidities did not differ between men and women. 48-h SBP/DBP (137.2 ± 17.4/81.9 ± 12.1 mmHg vs 132.2 ± 19.2/75.9 ± 11.7 mmHg, p = 0.045/<0.001) was significantly higher in men than women. During the 48-h period, all systolic BPV indices were similar between men and women (48-h SBP-ARV: 12.0 ± 2.9 vs 12.1 ± 3.2 mmHg, p = 0.683); 48-h DBP-SD, DBP-wSD and DBP-ARV (9.1 ± 1.6 vs 8.4 ± 1.8 mmHg, p = 0.005) were higher in men. In conclusion, short-term diastolic BPV indices are higher in male than female hemodialysis patients. Increased BPV may impact on the higher incidence of cardiovascular events observed in male hemodialysis patients.

Ambulatory blood pressure trajectories and blood pressure variability in kidney transplant recipients: a comparative study against chronic kidney disease patients

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Ambulatory blood pressure trajectories and blood pressure variability in kidney transplant recipients: a comparative study against haemodialysis patients

Background

Hypertension is the most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Preliminary data suggest similar ambulatory blood pressure (BP) levels in KTRs and haemodialysis (HD) patients. This is the first study comparing the full ambulatory BP profile and short-term BP variability (BPV) in KTRs versus HD patients.

Methods

A total of 204 KTRs were matched (2:1 ratio) with 102 HD patients for age and gender. BP levels, BP trajectories and BPV indices over a 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in KTRs were compared against both the first and second 24-h periods of a standard 48-h ABPM in HD patients. To evaluate the effect of renal replacement treatment and time on ambulatory BP levels, a two-way ANOVA for repeated measurements was performed.

Results

KTRs had significantly lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse-pressure (PP) levels compared with HD patients during all periods studied (24-h SBP: KTR: 126.5 ± 12.1 mmHg; HD first 24 h: 132.0 ± 18.1 mmHg; P = 0.006; second 24 h: 134.3 ± 17.7 mmHg; P < 0.001); no significant differences were noted for diastolic blood pressure levels with the exception of the second nighttime. Repeated measurements ANOVA showed a significant effect of renal replacement therapy modality and time on ambulatory SBP levels during all periods studied, and a significant interaction between them; the greatest between-group difference in BP (KTRs-HD in mmHg) was observed at the end of the second 24 h [-13.9 mmHg (95% confidence interval -21.5 to -6.2); P < 0.001]. Ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPV indices were significantly lower in KTRs than in HD patients during all periods studied (24-h SBP average real variability: KTRs: 9.6 ± 2.3 mmHg; HD first 24 h: 10.3 ± 3.0 mmHg; P = 0.032; second 24 h: 11.5 ± 3.0 mmHg; P < 0.001). No differences were noted in dipping pattern between the two groups.

Conclusions

SBP and PP levels and trajectories, and BPV were significantly lower in KTRs compared with age- and gender-matched HD patients during all periods studied. These findings suggest a more favourable ambulatory BP profile in KTRs, in contrast to previous observations.

Pre-dialytic Systolic Blood Pressure is an Independent Predictor of Intradialytic Hypertension

BACKGROUND: Since endothelial dysfunction and activation of renin-angiotensin aldosterone system are the primary mechanism of intradialytic hypertension (IDHT), the assessment of pre dialytic blood pressure might provide an important information for the prediction of IDHT. OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between pre dialytic blood pressure and the risk of IDHT. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang Hospital. The inclusion criteria were all hemodialysis patients aged more than 18 years, and the exclusion criteria were patients with hemodialysis duration of less than three months, patients with poor compliance to consume antihypertensive drugs, and hemodynamically unstable. The predictor variable was pre dialytic systolic blood pressure and the outcome was the incidence of IDHT. The association between pre dialytic blood pressure and the risk of IDHT was assessed using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients with IDHT and 60 patients without IDHT was enrolled in our study. Our study identified that pre dialytic systolic blood pressure was associated with the risk of IDHT, with mean difference was 10.90 mmHg between patients with IDHT and without IDHT. Our study confirmed that the levels of pre dialytic systolic blood pressure 135 mmHg was the optimal cut off, and we found that patients with pre dialytic systolic blood pressure ≥ 135 mmHg had 4.60-fold to develop IDHT compared to patients with pre dialytic systolic blood pressure < 135 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Our study reveals that pre dialytic systolic blood pressure is an important predictor of IDHT.

Association of peridialytic, intradialytic, scheduled interdialytic and ambulatory BP recordings with cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory-BP-monitoring (ABPM) is recommended for hypertension diagnosis and management in hemodialysis patients due to its strong association with outcomes. Intradialytic and scheduled interdialytic BP recordings show agreement with ambulatory BP. This study assesses in parallel the association of pre-dialysis, intradialytic, scheduled interdialytic and ambulatory BP recordings with cardiovascular events.

METHODS

We prospectively followed 242 hemodialysis patients with valid 48-h ABPMs for a median of 45.7 months to examine the association of pre-dialysis, intradialytic, intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis readings, scheduled interdialytic BP, and 44-h ambulatory BP with outcomes. The primary end-point was a composite one, composed of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, hospitalization for heart failure, coronary revascularization procedure or peripheral revascularization procedure.

RESULTS

Cumulative freedom from the primary end-point was significantly lower with increasing 44-h SBP (group 1, < 120 mmHg, 64.2%; group 2, ≥ 120 to < 130 mmHg 60.4%, group 3, ≥ 130 to < 140 mmHg 45.3%; group 4, ≥ 140 mmHg 45.5%; logrank-p = 0.016). Similar were the results for intradialytic (logrank-p = 0.039), intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis (logrank-p = 0.044), and scheduled interdialytic SBP (logrank-p = 0.030), but not for pre-dialysis SBP (logrank-p = 0.570). Considering group 1 as the reference group, the hazard ratios of the primary end-point showed a gradual increase with higher BP levels with all BP metrics, except pre-dialysis SBP. This pattern was confirmed in adjusted analyses. An inverse association of DBP levels with outcomes was shown with all BP metrics, which was no longer evident in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Averaged intradialytic and scheduled home BP measurements (but not pre-dialysis readings) display similar prognostic associations with 44-h ambulatory BP in hemodialysis patients and represent valid metrics for hypertension management in these individuals.

Blood Pressure Variability and Prognosis in Hemodialysis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The prognostic value of blood pressure variability (BPV) in patients receiving hemodialysis is inconclusive. In this study, we aimed to assess the association between BPV and clinical outcomes in the hemodialysis population.

Methods

Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science databases were searched for relevant articles published until April 1, 2020. Studies on the association between BPV and prognosis in patients receiving hemodialysis were included.

Results

A total of 14 studies (37,976 patients) were included in the analysis. In patients receiving hemodialysis, systolic BPV was associated with higher all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.19; p < 0.001) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.10-1.22; p < 0.001) mortality. In the stratified analysis of systolic BPV, interdialytic systolic BPV, rather than 44-h ambulatory systolic BPV or intradialytic systolic BPV, was identified to be related to both all-cause (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.05-1.17; p = 0.001) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.06-1.22; p < 0.001) mortality. Among the different BPV metrics, the coefficient of variation of systolic blood pressure was a predictor of both all-cause (p = 0.01) and cardiovascular (p = 0.002) mortality. Although diastolic BPV was associated with all-cause mortality (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.17; p = 0.02) in patients receiving hemodialysis, it failed to predict cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.52-1.42; p = 0.56).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis revealed that, in patients receiving hemodialysis, interdialytic systolic BPV was associated with both increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Furthermore, the coefficient of variation of systolic blood pressure was identified as a potentially promising metric of BPV in predicting all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. The use of 44-h ambulatory systolic BPV, intradialytic systolic BPV, and metrics of diastolic BPV in the prognosis of the hemodialysis population require further investigation (PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019139215).

Comparison of Dialysis Unit and Home Blood Pressures: An Observational Cohort Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Prior studies of patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis have shown that, on average, blood pressure (BP) measured predialysis is higher than BP measured at home. We hypothesized that a subset of hemodialysis patients has BP that is higher when measured at home than when measured predialysis and this subgroup of patients has a higher prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

97 hypertensive hemodialysis patients enrolled in the Blood Pressure in Dialysis Study (BID), a randomized trial of comparing target predialysis BP ≤140/90 to 155-165/90 mm Hg.

EXPOSURE

Differences between predialysis and next-day home systolic BP measured ≥6 times over 1 year.

OUTCOME

Left ventricular mass index (LVMI) by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

A hierarchical clustering analysis divided patients into 3 clusters based on the average and variability of differences in systolic predialysis and home BP. Clusters were compared with respect to clinical factors and LVMI.

RESULTS

Mean differences between predialysis and home systolic BP were 19.1 (95% CI, 17.0 to 21.1) mm Hg for cluster 1 ("home lower"), 3.7 (95% CI, 1.6 to 5.8) mm Hg for cluster 2 ("home and predialysis similar"), and -9.7 (95% CI, -12.0 to -7.4) mm Hg for cluster 3 ("home higher"). Systolic BP declined during dialysis in clusters 1 and 2 but increased in cluster 3. Interdialytic weight gains did not differ. After adjusting for sex and treatment arm, LVMI was higher in cluster 3 than in clusters 1 and 2: differences in means of 10.6 ± 4.96 (SE) g/m² (P = 0.04) and 12.0 ± 5.08 g/m² (P = 0.02), respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Limited statistical power.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one-third of participants had home BPs higher than predialysis BPs. These patients had LVMI higher than those with similar or lower BPs at home, indicating that their BP may have been undertreated.

Accuracy of Peridialytic, Intradialytic, and Scheduled Interdialytic Recordings in Detecting Elevated Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Hemodialysis Patients

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Current recommendations suggest the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as the gold standard for hypertension diagnosis and management in hemodialysis patients. This study assesses the accuracy of peridialytic, intradialytic, and scheduled interdialytic recordings in detecting abnormally elevated 44-hour interdialytic blood pressure (BP).

STUDY DESIGN

Diagnostic test study.

SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS

242 Greek hemodialysis patients who successfully underwent ABPM.

TESTS COMPARED

Ambulatory BP was used as the reference method to evaluate the accuracy of the following BP metrics: predialysis and postdialysis BP, intradialytic BP, intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis BP, and scheduled interdialytic BP (on an off-dialysis day at 8:00 am, 8:00 pm, and their average).

OUTCOME

44-hour ambulatory systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) ≥ 130/80 mm Hg.

RESULTS

The 44-hour SBP/DBP levels differed significantly from predialysis and postdialysis BP but showed no or minor differences compared with the other BP metrics. Bland-Altman plots showed an absence of systematic bias for all metrics but large between-method difference and wider 95% limits of agreement for predialysis and postdialysis BP compared with intradialytic, intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis, and averaged scheduled interdialytic BP. The sensitivity/specificity and κ-statistic for diagnosing 44-hour SBP ≥ 130 mm Hg were low for predialysis (86.5%/38.6%, κ-statistic = 0.27) and postdialysis BP (63.1%/73.3%, κ-statistic = 0.35), but better for intradialytic BP (77.3%/76.2%, κ-statistic = 0.53), intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis BP (76.6%/72.3%, κ-statistic = 0.49), and scheduled interdialytic BP (87.9%/77.2%, κ-statistic = 0.66). In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, the areas under the curve (AUC) of predialysis SBP (AUC = 0.723) and postdialysis SBP (AUC = 0.746) were significantly lower than that of intradialytic SBP (AUC = 0.850), intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis SBP (AUC = 0.850), and scheduled interdialytic SBP (AUC = 0.917) (z test, P < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). Similar observations were made for DBP.

LIMITATIONS

Typical home BP data were not obtained, and no assessment was obtained of the reproducibility of the examined metrics over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Intradialytic, intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis, and scheduled interdialytic BP measurements were more accurate in detecting elevated 44-hour BP than predialysis and postdialysis BP. Averaged intradialytic BP recordings or scheduled readings at the off-dialysis day appear to be promising approaches to the diagnosis of elevated BP in hemodialysis.

Volume overload in hemodialysis: diagnosis, cardiovascular consequences, and management

Volume overload in haemodialysis (HD) patients associates with hypertension and cardiac dysfunction and is a major risk factor for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in this population. The diagnosis of volume excess and estimation of dry weight is based largely on clinical criteria and has a notoriously poor diagnostic accuracy. The search for accurate and objective methods to evaluate dry weight and to diagnose subclinical volume overload has been intensively pursued over the last 3 decades. Most methods have not been tested in appropriate clinical trials and their usefulness in clinical practice remains uncertain, except for bioimpedance spectroscopy and lung ultrasound (US). Bioimpedance spectroscopy is possibly the most widely used method to subjectively quantify fluid distributions over body compartments and produces reliable and reproducible results. Lung US provides reliable estimates of extravascular water in the lung, a critical parameter of the central circulation that in large part reflects the left ventricular end-diastolic pressure. To maximize cardiovascular tolerance, fluid removal in volume-expanded HD patients should be gradual and distributed over a sufficiently long time window. This review summarizes current knowledge about the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of volume overload in HD patients.

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.

The effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on postdialysis and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized cross-over study

OBJECTIVES

Intradialytic hypertension is estimated at 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Studies on therapeutic interventions for this entity are extremely few. We aimed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on peridialytic, intradialytic, and ambulatory BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension.

METHODS

This is a pilot randomized-cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients (age: 60.4 ± 11.1 years, men: 65.8%) with intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic SBP rise ≥10 mmHg at ≥4 over six consecutive sessions]. After baseline evaluation, patients were randomly assigned to nebivolol 5 mg and subsequently irbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. Nineteen patients received a single drug-dose 1 h before hemodialysis and 19 received the drug for a week before evaluation. A 2-week wash-out period took place before the initiation of the second drug. Patients had three respective 24-h ambulatory BP measurements starting before a midweek session.

RESULTS

In total, 20 (52.6%) patients received nebivolol first and 18 (47.4%) received irbesartan. Patients receiving a single dose of either drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 160.2 ± 17.8/93.2 ± 13.6 mmHg; nebivolol: 148.0 ± 20.8/84.5 ± 13.1 mmHg, P = 0.013/P = 0.027; irbesartan 142.9 ± 29.9/87.2 ± 18.1 mmHg, P = 0.003/P = 0.104 for SBP and DBP, respectively). The 24-h BP presented a trend towards reduction, but was significant only for 24-h DBP in the nebivolol arm. Patients on weekly administration of either drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 162.5 ± 16.8/95.4 ± 12.7 mmHg; nebivolol: 146.7 ± 16.3/91.8 ± 12.2 mmHg, P = 0.001/P = 0.235; irbesartan: 146.0 ± 23.9/85.8 ± 12.9 mmHg, P = 0.004/ P = 0.007, respectively), lower intradialytic BP and lower 24-h BP (baseline: 148.3 ± 12.6/90.2 ± 9.0 mmHg; nebivolol: 139.2 ± 10.6/85.0 ± 7.7 mmHg, P < 0.001/P = 0.001; irbesartan: 142.4 ± 16.4/85.1 ± 9.9 mmHg, P = 0.156/P = 0.030). No significant differences were observed in comparisons between the two drugs, with the exception of heart rate, being lower with nebivolol.

CONCLUSION

Both nebivolol and irbesartan reduced postdialysis and 24-h BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. Weekly administration had greater effect and nebivolol was numerically slightly more potent than irbesartan.

Increased Nighttime Pulse Pressure Variability but Not Ambulatory Blood Pressure Levels Predicts 14-Year All-Cause Mortality in Patients on Hemodialysis

Increased short-term blood pressure (BP) variability is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension. The present study investigated the long-term prognostic significance of the short-term blood pressure variability in patients on hemodialysis. A total of 149 patients (53.0% male; mean age: 54.5±15.1 years) receiving regular hemodialysis for >6 months were enrolled. They completed a 44-hour (excluding the hemodialysis session) ambulatory BP monitoring and comprehensive hemodynamic assessments, including carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and pressure waveform decomposition (forward and backward wave amplitude). Blood pressure variability parameters, including average real variability (ARV) of systolic BP, diastolic BP, and pulse pressure (ARVp) during daytime, nighttime, and overall 44 hours were calculated. During a median follow-up of 14 years, 78 deaths (52.4%) were confirmed. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, none of the ambulatory BP parameters were predictive of mortality. In contrast, nighttime ARVp was consistently and significantly associated with all-cause mortality in multivariable Cox models adjusting for age, sex, albumin, hemodialysis treatment adequacy, and 44-hour systolic BP (continuous variable analysis, per 1-SD, hazard ratio=1.348; 95% CI, 1.029-1.767; categorical variable analysis, ≥8.5 versus <8.5 mm Hg; hazard ratio=1.825; 95% CI, 1.074-3.103). Forward wave amplitude and 44-hour systolic BP were identified as the 2 most important determinants of nighttime ARVp. Addition of nighttime ARVp to the base model significantly improved prediction of all-cause mortality (Net reclassification improvement =0.198; P=0.0012). In hemodialysis patients, increased short-term nighttime pulse pressure variability but not ambulatory BP levels were significantly predictive of long-term all-cause mortality.

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.

Comparison of Chronic Hemodialysis Patients under Strict Volume Control with respect to Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of strict volume control and nondipper situation on cardiovascular disease in chronic hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

This study is an observational and cross-sectional study including 62 patients with normotensive chronic hemodialysis using no antihypertensive drugs. A series of measurements including ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, left ventricular mass index by echocardiography, common carotid artery intima-media thickness by ultrasound, and body fluids by bioimpedance analysis were conducted for all subjects.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into two groups as dippers and nondippers according to their ambulatory blood pressure monitoring results. Average 48 h systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure and nocturnal systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure were significantly different between the dipper and nondipper groups (p<0.05). Before and after dialysis, extracellular fluid/intracellular fluid and extracellular fluid/dry body weight ratios were significantly higher in the nondipper group. Left ventricle mass index and interventricular septum thickness were significantly higher in the nondipper group (p<0.05). Left ventricle ejection fraction was significantly lower and common carotid artery intima-media thickness was higher in the nondipper group with a statistical significance (p<0.05). A two-predictor logistic model was fitted to the data to predict the comparability of dippers and nondippers.

CONCLUSION

According to logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio for daytime diastolic blood pressure indicates that nondippers are 0.45 times more likely to have high blood pressure than dippers in daytime. But in night time, nondippers are about 2.55 times more likely to have high blood pressure comparing to dippers. An important finding of this study is that nondipping pattern is associated with cardiac hypertrophy and lower left ventricle ejection fraction in dialysis of patients with no hypertension. The results also suggest that applying strict volume control to achieve a normal blood pressure alone is not sufficient to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality if the patients do not have a dipper status of nocturnal blood pressure.

Prevalence and control of hypertension by 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in haemodialysis patients: a study by the European Cardiovascular and Renal Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the ERA-EDTA

Background

Population-specific consensus documents recommend that the diagnosis of hypertension in haemodialysis patients be based on 48-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring. However, until now there is just one study in the USA on the prevalence of hypertension in haemodialysis patients by 44-h recordings. Since there is a knowledge gap on the problem in European countries, we reassessed the problem in the European Cardiovascular and Renal Medicine working group Registry of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Methods

A total of 396 haemodialysis patients underwent 48-h ABP monitoring during a regular haemodialysis session and the subsequent interdialytic interval. Hypertension was defined as (i) pre-haemodialysis blood pressure (BP) ≥140/90 mmHg or use of antihypertensive agents and (ii) ABP ≥130/80 mmHg or use of antihypertensive agents.

Results

The prevalence of hypertension by 48-h ABP monitoring was very high (84.3%) and close to that by pre-haemodialysis BP (89.4%) but the agreement of the two techniques was not of the same magnitude (κ statistics = 0.648; P &lt;0.001). In all, 290 participants were receiving antihypertensive treatment. In all, 9.1% of haemodialysis patients were categorized as normotensives, 12.6% had controlled hypertension confirmed by the two BP techniques, while 46.0% had uncontrolled hypertension with both techniques. The prevalence of white coat hypertension was 18.2% and that of masked hypertension 14.1%. Of note, hypertension was confined only to night-time in 22.2% of patients while just 1% of patients had only daytime hypertension. Pre-dialysis BP ≥140/90 mmHg had 76% sensitivity and 54% specificity for the diagnosis of BP ≥130/80 mmHg by 48-h ABP monitoring.

Conclusions

The prevalence of hypertension in haemodialysis patients assessed by 48-h ABP monitoring is very high. Pre-haemodialysis BP poorly reflects the 48 h-ABP burden. About a third of the haemodialysis population has white coat or masked hypertension. These findings add weight to consensus documents supporting the use of ABP monitoring for proper hypertension diagnosis and treatment in this population.