Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease Part 1

A European Renal Association (ERA) synopsis for nephrology practice of the 2023 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension

In June 2023, the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) presented and published the new 2023 ESH Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension, a document that was endorsed by the European Renal Association (ERA). Following the evolution of evidence in recent years, several novel recommendations relevant to the management of hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) appeared in these Guidelines. These include recommendations for target office blood pressure (BP) <130/80 mmHg in most and against target office BP <120/70 mmHg in all patients with CKD; recommendations for use of spironolactone or chlorthalidone for patients with resistant hypertension with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) higher or lower than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively; use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor for patients with CKD and estimated eGFR ≥20 mL/min/1.73 m2; use of finerenone for patients with CKD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, albuminuria, eGFR ≥25 mL/min/1.73 m2 and serum potassium <5.0 mmol/L; and revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease and secondary hypertension or high-risk phenotypes if stenosis ≥70% is present. The present report is a synopsis of sections of the ESH Guidelines that are relevant to the daily clinical practice of nephrologists, prepared by experts from ESH and ERA. The sections summarized are those referring to the role of CKD in hypertension staging and cardiovascular risk stratification, the evaluation of hypertension-mediated kidney damage and the overall management of hypertension in patients with CKD.

Effect of medium cut-off and high-flux hemodialysis membranes on blood pressure assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is one of the most critical risk factors for cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Medium cut-off (MCO) membrane increases the clearance of medium molecules, which could improve blood pressure (BP) control. This study aimed to compare the effect of MCO and high-flux hemodialysis membranes on BP assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM).

METHODS

This is a pre-established secondary analysis of a 28-week, randomized, open-label crossover clinical trial. Patients were randomized to HD with MCO or high-flux membranes over 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week washout period, and then switched to the alternate membrane treatment for 12 weeks. ABPM was started before the HD session and ended at least 24 h later in weeks 1, 12, 16, and 28.

RESULTS

32 patients, 59% male, with a mean age of 52.7 years, and 40% with unknown CKD etiology, were enrolled. The dialysis vintage was 8 years, and more than 70% of the patients had hypertension. Regarding 24-h BP control, morning diastolic BP showed an increase in the high-flux compared to stability in the MCO group (interaction effect, p = 0.039). The adjusted ANOVA models showed no significant difference in the morning BP levels between the groups. Considering only the period of the HD session, patients in the MCO, compared to those in the high-flux membrane group, showed greater BP stability during dialysis, characterized by smaller variation in the pre-post HD systolic and minimum systolic BP (treatment effect, p = 0.039, and p = 0.023, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

MCO membrane seems to have a beneficial effect on morning BP and favors better BP stability during HD sessions.

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.

Diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic kidney disease

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cardiovascular death. Identifying and monitoring cardiovascular complications and hypertension is important for managing patients with CKD or kidney failure and transplant recipients. Biomarkers of myocardial ischaemia, such as troponins and electrocardiography (ECG), have limited utility for diagnosing cardiac ischaemia in patients with advanced CKD. Dobutamine stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and dipyridamole stress testing can be used to detect coronary disease in these patients. Left ventricular hypertrophy and left ventricular dysfunction can be detected and monitored using various techniques with differing complexity and cost, including ECG, echocardiography, nuclear magnetic resonance, CT and myocardial scintigraphy. Atrial fibrillation and other major arrhythmias are common in all stages of CKD, and ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring enables precise time profiling of these disorders. Screening for cerebrovascular disease is only indicated in asymptomatic patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Standardized blood pressure is recommended for hypertension diagnosis and treatment monitoring and can be complemented by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Judicious use of these diagnostic techniques may assist clinicians in detecting the whole range of cardiovascular alterations in patients with CKD and enable timely treatment of CVD in this high-risk population.

Does Renal Denervation a Reasonable Treatment Option in Hemodialysis-Dependent Patient with Resistant Hypertension? A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review aims to assess the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of resistant hypertension (RH) in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients on dialysis, with a specific focus on the effect of renal denervation (RDN) on short-term and long-term blood pressure (BP) control. Additionally, we share our experience with the use of RDN in an amyloidotic patient undergoing hemodialysis with RH.

RECENT FINDINGS

High BP, an important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, is often observed in patients in ESKD, despite the administration of multiple antihypertensive medications. However, in clinical practice, it remains challenging to identify RH patients on dialysis treatment because of the absence of specific definition for RH in this context. Moreover, the use of invasive approaches, such as RDN, to treat RH is limited by the exclusion of patients with reduced renal function (eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m3) in the clinical trials. Nevertheless, recent studies have reported encouraging results regarding the effectiveness of RDN in stage 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ESKD patients on dialysis, with reductions in BP of nearly up to 10 mmhg. Although multiple underlying pathophysiological mechanisms contribute to RH, the overactivation of the sympathetic nervous system in ESKD patients on dialysis plays a crucial role. The diagnosis of RH requires both confirmation of adherence to antihypertensive therapy and the presence of uncontrolled BP values by ambulatory BP monitoring or home BP monitoring. Treatment involves a combination of nonpharmacological approaches (such as dry weight reduction, sodium restriction, dialysate sodium concentration reduction, and exercise) and pharmacological treatments. A promising approach for managing of RH is based on catheter-based RDN, through radiofrequency, ultrasound, or alcohol infusion, directly targeting on sympathetic overactivity.

Standardizing Blood Pressure Measurements in Pediatric Hemodialysis: a Collaborative Journey

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This manuscript details the development and execution of a quality improvement (QI) initiative aimed at standardizing blood pressure (BP) measurement practices in pediatric hemodialysis (HD) units across a national dialysis collaborative.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although there are recommendations for the detection and treatment of hypertension in the pediatric population, currently there is no data or recommendations specific to the methodology of measuring blood pressure in a pediatric hemodialysis setting. In 2016, the Standardizing Care to Improve Outcomes in Pediatric End Stage Kidney Disease (SCOPE) Collaborative assembled a dedicated working group to thoroughly examine BP measurement practices across participating pediatric HD centers and, drawing from current research, to establish a standardized best practice for BP measurement in pediatric HD patients both in-center and at home. Employing QI methodology, the working group devised a standardized "BP Bundle" and implemented it throughout the SCOPE Collaborative. This work led to successful practice improvement by establishing a consistent approach to BP measurement in pediatric HD patients cared for in SCOPE centers. With a standard best practice now in place and over 85% compliance with the BP Bundle across the SCOPE Collaborative, researchers and healthcare professionals can more accurately study and ultimately enhance the cardiovascular health of pediatric HD patients.

Heart rate variability at rest and in response to stress: Comparative study between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients

Cardiac arrhythmias and sudden death are the leading causes of mortality in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Autonomic nervous system (ANS) dysfunction contributes to this arrhythmogenic background. This study compared heart rate variability (HRV) indices between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, both at rest and in response to mental and physical stimulation maneuvers. Thirty-four HD and 34 PD patients matched for age, sex, and dialysis vintage, and 17 age- and sex-matched controls were studied. ANS function was examined by linear and non-linear HRV indices. Heart rate was recorded continuously (Finometer-PRO) at rest and during ANS maneuvers (orthostatic, mental-arithmetic, sit-to-stand, handgrip exercise tests). At rest, no significant differences between HD and PD were observed in HRV (root mean square of successive differences [RMSSD]: HD = 57.1 ± 81.1 vs PD = 69.6 ± 113.4 ms; P = 0.792), except for detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA-α1) (HD = 0.87 ± 0.40 vs PD = 0.70 ± 0.20; P = 0.047). DFA-α1 was significantly lower in PD than controls (1.00 ± 0.33; P < 0.05). All HRV indices during the mental-arithmetic test (RMSSD: HD = 128.2 ± 346.0 vs PD = 87.5 ± 150.0 ms; P = 0.893) and the physical stress tests were similar between HD and PD. The standard deviation along the line-of-identity (SD2)/the standard deviation perpendicular to the line-of-identity (SD1) ratio during mental-arithmetic was marginally lower in HD and significantly lower in PD than controls (PD = 1.31 ± 0.47 vs controls = 1.79 ± 0.64; P < 0.05). Both dialysis groups presented similar patterns in HRV responses during orthostatic and handgrip exercise tests. After the sit-to-stand, RMSSD, SD1, SD2, and DFA-α2 were higher compared to rest only in HD (RMSSD = 57.1 ± 81.1 vs 126.7 ± 185.7 ms; P = 0.028), suggesting a greater difficulty of HD patients in recovering normal ANS function in response to physical stress. In conclusion, HRV indices at rest and after mental and physical stimulation did not differ between HD and PD; however, the ANS responses following the sit-to-stand test were more impaired in HD. These findings suggest that ANS dysfunction is not largely affected by dialysis modality, but small differences in normal ANS recovery may exist.

Intra-dialytic blood pressure variability is a greater predictor of cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Short-term and long-term blood pressure variability (BPV) in hemodialysis (HD) population are risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and all-cause mortality. There is no full consensus on the best BPV metric. We compared the prognostic role of intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics for CVD morbidity and all-cause mortality in HD patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 120 patients on HD was followed up for 44 months. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and baseline characteristics were collected for 3 months. We calculated intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics, including standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), variability independent of the mean (VIM), average real variability (ARV) and residual. The primary outcomes were CVD events and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

In Cox regression analysis, both intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics were associated with increased CVD events (intra-dialytic CV: HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.28-2.27, p < 0.01; visit-to-visit CV: HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12-2.16, p < 0.01), but not associated with increased all-cause mortality (intra-dialytic CV: HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99-1.76, p = 0.06; visit-to-visit CV: HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91-1.63, p = 0.18). Overall, intra-dialytic BPV showed greater prognostic ability than visit-to-visit BPV for both CVD event (AUC of intra-dialytic BPV and visit-to-visit BPV metrics respectively: SD 0.686, 0.606; CV 0.672, 0.425; VIM 0.677, 0.581; ARV 0.684, 0.618; residual 0.652, 0.586) and all-cause mortality (SD 0.671, 0.608; CV 0.662, 0.575; VIM 0.669, 0.581; ARV 0.529, 0.588; residual 0.651, 0.602).

CONCLUSION

Compared to visit-to-visit BPV, intra-dialytic BPV is a greater predictor of CVD event in HD patients. No obvious priority was found among various BPV metrics.

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.

Intradialytic hypertension: epidemiology and pathophysiology of a silent killer

The term intradialytic hypertension (IDH) describes a paradoxical rise in blood pressure (BP) during or immediately after the hemodialysis session. Although it was formerly considered a phenomenon without clinical implications, current evidence suggests that IDH may affect up to 15% of hemodialysis patients and exhibit independent associations with future cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Furthermore, during the last decade, several studies have tried to elucidate the complex pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for this phenomenon. Volume overload, intradialytic sodium gain, overactivity of the sympathetic-nervous-system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, endothelial dysfunction and dialysis-related electrolyte disturbances have been proposed to be involved in the pathogenesis of the BP increase during hemodialysis. This review attempts to summarize existing evidence on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of the distinct phenomenon of IDH.

A parallel evaluation of short- and mid-term changes of ambulatory blood pressure in kidney transplant recipients and kidney donors

Introduction

Kidney transplantation (KTx) is associated with improved blood pressure (BP) levels for kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) without evoking significant changes in donors. However, there is a paucity of studies offering simultaneous detailed evaluation of BP profiles over time in transplant donor-recipient pairs. The aim of the present study was the parallel evaluation of ambulatory BP levels and trajectories in KTRs and their respective living kidney donors in the short and mid-term following KTx.

Methods

The study enrolled 40 prospective adult KTRs and their 40 respective donors. All participants were evaluated with 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (Mobil-O-Graph NG device) at three time points: baseline (1 month before KTx), 3 months and 12 months after KTx.

Results

In KTRs, 3-month 24-h systolic BP (SBP) was marginally reduced and 12-month 24-h SBP significantly reduced compared with baseline [131.9 ± 13.3 versus 126.4 ± 11.9 mmHg (P = .075) and 123.9 ± 10.3 mmHg (P = .009),  respectively]. At both the 3- and 12-month time points, 24-h diastolic BP (DBP) was significantly reduced [86.7 ± 11.5 versus 82.2 ± 8.1 mmHg (P = .043) and 80.3 ± 8.5 mmHg (P = .009)]. Similar observations were made for day- and night time SBP and DBP. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant gradual decrease over time in mean 24-h SBP [F(1.463, 39.505) = 3.616; P = .049, partial η ² = 0.118] and DBP [F(1.374, 37.089) = 11.34; P = .055, partial η ² = 0.116]. In contrast, in kidney donors, 24-h SBP [118.5 ± 11.6 versus 118.2 ± 12.8 mmHg (P = .626) and 119.2 ± 11.4 mmHg (P = .748)] and DBP did not change at 3 or 12 months compared with baseline; repeated measures ANOVA showed no differences in the mean 24-h SBP and DBP levels over time. The number of antihypertensive agents decreas in KTRs and remained stable in donors.

Conclusions

KTx reduces ambulatory BP levels and trajectories in KTRs at 3 months and further so at 12 months post-surgery. Kidney donation does not affect the ambulatory BP levels and trajectories of donors at the same intervals.

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Early morning hemodynamic changes and left ventricular hypertrophy and mortality in hemodialysis patients

INTRODUCTION

An exaggeration of the early morning increase in BP, a phenomenon accompanied by a parallel rise in heart rate (HR), is a marker of high cardiovascular risk. The early morning changes in these parameters have not been investigated in the hemodialysis population.

METHODS

In a pilot, single center study including a series of 58 patients we measured the pre-awakening BP and HR surges and the nocturnal dipping of the same parameters as well as other established indicators of autonomic function (weighted 24 h systolic BP and HR variability) and tested their relationship with the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and with the risk of death over a median follow up of 40 months.

RESULTS

The pre-awakening HR surge (r = - 0.46, P = 0.001) but not the corresponding BP surge (r = - 0.1, P = 0.98) was associated with LVMI and the risk of death [HR (1 unit): 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96, P = 0.001]. The link between the pre-awakening HR surge with these outcome measures was robust and largely independent of established risk factors in the hemodialysis population, including the nocturnal dipping of BP. Weighted 24 h systolic BP and HR variability did not correlate with LVMI (all P > 0.11) nor with the risk of death (P > 0.11) and were also independent of the nocturnal dipping of systolic BP and HR.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that the low early morning changes in HR, likely reflecting enhanced sympathetic activity, entail a high risk for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and mortality in the hemodialysis population.

Measurement of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease: Time to Change Our Clinical Practice - A Comprehensive Review

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is extremely common all over the world and is strongly linked to cardiovascular disease (CVD). The great majority of CKD patients have hypertension, which raises the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), end-stage kidney disease, and mortality. Controlling hypertension in patients with CKD is critical in our clinical practice since it slows the course of the disease and lowers the risk of CVD. As a result, accurate blood pressure (BP) monitoring is crucial for CKD diagnosis and therapy. Three important guidelines on BP thresholds and targets for antihypertensive medication therapy have been published in the recent decade emphasizing the way we measure BP. For both office BP and out-of-office BP measuring techniques, their clinical importance in the management of hypertension has been well defined. Although BP measurement is widely disseminated and routinely performed in most clinical settings, it remains unstandardized, and practitioners frequently fail to follow the basic recommendations to avoid measurement errors. This may lead to misdiagnosis and wrong management of hypertension, especially in CKD patients. Here, we review presently available all BP measuring techniques and their use in clinical practice and the recommendations from various guidelines and research gaps emphasizing CKD patients.

Sex differences in ambulatory blood pressure levels, control, and phenotypes of hypertension in kidney transplant recipients

OBJECTIVES

Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control is worse in men compared with women with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and this may partially explain the faster CKD progression in men. This is the first study investigating possible sex differences in prevalence, control and phenotypes of hypertension in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with office-BP and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 136 male and 69 female stable KTRs who underwent office-BP measurements and 24-h ABPM. Hypertension thresholds for office and ambulatory BP were defined according to the 2017 ACC/AHA and 2021 KDIGO guidelines for KTRs.

RESULTS

Age, time from transplantation, eGFR and history of major comorbidities did not differ between groups. Office SBP/DBP levels were insignificantly higher in men than women (130.3 ± 16.3/77.3 ± 9.4 vs. 126.4 ± 17.8/74.9 ± 11.5 mmHg; P = 0.118/0.104) but daytime SBP/DBP was significantly higher in men (128.5 ± 12.1/83.0 ± 8.2 vs. 124.6 ± 11.9/80.3 ± 9.3 mmHg; P = 0.032/P = 0.044). No significant between-group differences were detected for night-time BP. The prevalence of hypertension was similar by office-BP criteria (93.4 vs. 91.3%; P = 0.589), but higher in men than women with ABPM (100 vs. 95.7%; P = 0.014). The use of ACEIs/ARBs and CCBs was more common in men. Office-BP control was similar (43.3 vs. 44.4%, P = 0.882), but 24-h control was significantly lower in men than women (16.9 vs. 30.3%; P = 0.029). White-coat hypertension was similar (5.1 vs. 7.6%; P = 0.493), whereas masked hypertension was insignificantly more prevalent in men than women (35.3 vs. 24.2%; P = 0.113).

CONCLUSION

BP levels, hypertension prevalence and control are similar by office criteria but significantly different by ABPM criteria between male and female KTRs. Worse ambulatory BP control in male compared with female KTRs may interfere with renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

The assessment of hypertension in kidney transplant patients: time to change our approach?

Kidney transplantation (KT) is an increasingly utilized treatment for end-stage kidney disease. Hypertension either as a cause of kidney disease or as a complication of chronic kidney disease is the most frequently encountered comorbidity of KT patients. Hence, the management of hypertension in KT patients is crucial to prolong patient and graft survival. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) appeared as a promising technique that has superiority over office and home blood pressure (BP) monitoring to correctly diagnose and manage hypertension. A recent meta-analysis by Pisano et al. including 42 studies with 4115 participants provided strong data for the comparison of ABPM with office BP monitoring in KT patients. In addition to the current literature knowledge, the findings of Pisano et al. filled the long-awaited evidence gap to suggest ABPM as a first-line BP monitoring technique for KT patients. Despite its disadvantages, such as patient discomfort, cost–effectiveness and limited availability, ABPM has crucial advantages in the management of hypertension including the detection of abnormal circadian BP patterns, the assessment of effects of physical activity and short-term variability of BP, and the exclusion of masked and white-coat hypertension.

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.

Ambulatory blood pressure trajectories and blood pressure variability in kidney transplant recipients: a comparative study against hemodialysis 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.

Different circadian patterns of arterial stiffness are responsible for increased cardiovascular mortality in hemodialyzed patients

We hypothesized that volume changes during 48-h are associated with different circadian patterns of arterial stiffness on non-dialysis day compared to dialysis day and that the night-time increase of arterial stiffness is associated with higher mortality. The patients whose night-time mean pulse wave velocity levels drop or rise more than 0.5 m/s compared with the day-time period were defined as pulse wave velocity dippers and risers. The patients whose night-time mean augmentation index drop or rise more than 10% compared with the day-time period were defined as augmentation index dippers and risers. There was significantly higher number of patients with dipping and rising pattern of augmentation index and pulse wave velocity on non-dialysis day when compared to dialysis day. On the non-dialysis day both nocturnal augmentation index and pulse wave velocity levels were higher in deceased group with significantly higher number of augmentation index and pulse wave velocity dippers when compared to survived patients. In the linear regression model, the strongest association of survival was with augmentation index and pulse wave velocity risers on the non-dialysis day. On logistic regression only pulse wave velocity rising pattern on non-dialysis day had increased HR of 1.78 for cardiovascular mortality. The present study is the first which analyzed circadian patterns of arterial stiffness in patients on hemodialysis and compared their impact on cardiovascular mortality. A significantly greater number of patients had an augmentation index and pulse wave velocity rising pattern in the deceased group compared to the survived group of patients. Survival had the strongest association with augmentation index and pulse wave velocity risers on the non-dialysis day.

Home blood pressure monitoring: methodology, clinical relevance and practical application: a 2021 position paper by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability of the European Society of Hypertension

The present paper provides an update of previous recommendations on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring from the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability sequentially published in years 2000, 2008 and 2010. This update has taken into account new evidence in this field, including a recent statement by the American Heart association, as well as technological developments, which have occurred over the past 20 years. The present document has been developed by the same ESH Working Group with inputs from an international team of experts, and has been endorsed by the ESH.

Diagnostic Performance of Office versus Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Kidney Transplant Recipients

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is the most prominent risk factor in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). No study so far assessed in parallel the prevalence, control, and phenotypes of blood pressure (BP) or the accuracy of currently recommended office BP diagnostic thresholds in diagnosing elevated ambulatory BP in KTRs.

METHODS

205 stable KTRs underwent office BP measurements and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Hypertension was defined as follows: (1) office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents following the current European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) guidelines, (2) office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents following the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines, (3) ABPM ≥130/80 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents, and (4) ABPM ≥125/75 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents.

RESULTS

Hypertension prevalence by office BP was 88.3% with ESC/ESH and 92.7% with ACC/AHA definitions compared to 94.1 and 98.5% at relevant ABPM thresholds. Control rates among hypertensive patients were 69.6 and 43.7% with office BP compared to 38.3 and 21.3% with ABPM, respectively. Both for prevalence (κ-statistics = 0.52, p < 0.001 and 0.32, and p < 0.001) and control rates (κ-statistics = 0.21, p < 0.001 and 0.22, and p < 0.001, respectively), there was moderate or fair agreement of the 2 techniques. White-coat and masked hypertension were diagnosed in 6.7 and 39.5% of patients at the 140/90 threshold and 5.9 and 31.7% of patients at the 130/80 threshold. An office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg had 35.3% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for the diagnosis of 24-h BP ≥130/80 mm Hg. An office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg had 59.7% sensitivity and 73.9% specificity for the diagnosis of 24-h BP ≥125/75 mm Hg. Receiver operating curve analyses confirmed this poor diagnostic performance.

CONCLUSIONS

At both corresponding thresholds studied, ABPM revealed particularly high hypertension prevalence and poor BP control in KTRs. Misclassification of KTRs by office BP is substantial, due to particularly high rates of masked hypertension. The diagnostic accuracy of office BP for identifying elevated ambulatory BP is poor. These findings call for a wider use of ABPM in KTRs.

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.

Current challenges for hypertension management: From better hypertension diagnosis to improved patients' adherence and blood pressure control

Hypertension control still remains a largely unmet challenge for public health systems. Despite the progress in blood pressure (BP) measurement techniques, and the availability of effective and safe antihypertensive drugs, a large number of hypertensive patients are not properly identified, and a significant proportion of those who receive antihypertensive treatment fail to achieve satisfactory control of their BP levels. It is thus not surprising that hypertension is still a major contributor to disease burden and disability worlwide, even in developed countries. This paper will address current challenges in hypertension management and potential strategies for an improvement in this field. In its first part relevant issues related to hypertension diagnosis will be addressed, in particular how to improve identification of sustained BP elevation and specific BP phenotypes such as white coat and masked hypertension trough the combined use of office and out-of-office BP monitoring techniques. In its second part focus will be on how to improve achievement of hypertension control in treated patients by optimization and simplification of medication regimens, including more efficient selection and titration of antihypertensive drugs and their combinations, aimed at achieving a more consistent 24hBP control; and by favoring a more active patients' and physicians' involvement in hypertension management also through BP telemonitoring and mobile health technologies.

Pelacarsen for lowering lipoprotein(a): implications for patients with chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and statins may not be protective in advanced CKD. The reasons for the limited efficacy of statins in advanced CKD are unclear, but statins may increase plasma levels of the highly atherogenic molecule lipoprotein(a), also termed Lp(a), as well as PCSK9 (protein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) levels. Lp(a) has also been linked to calcific aortic stenosis, which is common in CKD. Moreover, circulating Lp(a) levels increase in nephrotic syndrome with declining renal function and are highest in patients on peritoneal dialysis. Thus, the recent publication of the Phase 2 randomized controlled trial of pelacarsen [also termed AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and TQJ230], a hepatocyte-directed antisense oligonucleotide targeting the LPA gene messenger RNA, in persons with CVD should be good news for nephrologists. Pelacarsen safely and dose-dependently decreased Lp(a) levels by 35-80% and a Phase 3 trial [Lp(a)HORIZON, NCT04023552] is planned to run from 2020 to 2024. Unfortunately, patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min or urinary albumin:creatinine ratio >100 mg/g were excluded from Phase 2 trials and those with 'significant kidney disease' will be excluded from the Phase 3 trial. Optimized exclusion criteria for Lp(a)HORIZON would provide insights into the role of Lp(a) in CVD in CKD patients.

Blood pressure and volume management in dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Blood pressure (BP) and volume control are critical components of dialysis care and have substantial impacts on patient symptoms, quality of life, and cardiovascular complications. Yet, developing consensus best practices for BP and volume control have been challenging, given the absence of objective measures of extracellular volume status and the lack of high-quality evidence for many therapeutic interventions. In February of 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a Controversies Conference titled Blood Pressure and Volume Management in Dialysis to assess the current state of knowledge related to BP and volume management and identify opportunities to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes among individuals receiving maintenance dialysis. Four major topics were addressed: BP measurement, BP targets, and pharmacologic management of suboptimal BP; dialysis prescriptions as they relate to BP and volume; extracellular volume assessment and management with a focus on technology-based solutions; and volume-related patient symptoms and experiences. The overarching theme resulting from presentations and discussions was that managing BP and volume in dialysis involves weighing multiple clinical factors and risk considerations as well as patient lifestyle and preferences, all within a narrow therapeutic window for avoiding acute or chronic volume-related complications. Striking this challenging balance requires individualizing the dialysis prescription by incorporating comorbid health conditions, treatment hemodynamic patterns, clinical judgment, and patient preferences into decision-making, all within local resource constraints.

Uncertainties in BP management in dialysis patients

Hypertension in dialysis patients is extremely common. In this article, we review the current evidence for blood pressure (BP) goals in hemodialysis patients, and consider the effectiveness of interventions by which BP may be lowered, including manipulation of dietary and dialysate sodium; optimization of extracellular water; prolongation of dialysis time; and antihypertensive medication. Although two meta-analyses suggest lowering BP using antihypertensive drugs might be beneficial in reducing cardiovascular events and mortality, there are insufficient rigorously designed trials in hypertensive hemodialysis populations to determine preferred antihypertensive drug classes. We suggest aiming for predialysis systolic BP between 130 and 159 mm Hg, while at the same time acknowledge the significant limitations of the data upon which it is based. We conclude by summarizing current knowledge as regards management of hypertension in the peritoneal dialysis population and make recommendations for future research in this field.

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.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring over 24 h: A Latin American Society of Hypertension position paper-accessibility, clinical use and cost effectiveness of ABPM in Latin America in year 2020

Accurate office blood pressure measurement remains crucial in the diagnosis and management of hypertension worldwide, including Latin America (LA). Office blood pressure (OBP) measurement is still the leading technique in LA for screening and diagnosis of hypertension, monitoring of treatment, and long-term follow-up. Despite this, due to the increasing awareness of the limitations affecting OBP and to the accumulating evidence on the importance of ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), as a complement of OBP in the clinical approach to the hypertensive patient, a progressively greater attention has been paid worldwide to the information on daytime and nighttime BP patterns offered by 24-h ABPM in the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic management of hypertension. In LA countries, most of the Scientific Societies of Hypertension and/or Cardiology have issued guidelines for hypertension care, and most of them include a special section on ABPM. Also, full guidelines on ABPM are available. However, despite the available evidence on the advantages of ABPM for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in LA, availability of ABPM is often restricted to cities with large population, and access to this technology by lower-income patients is sometimes limited by its excessive cost. The authors hope that this document might stimulate health authorities in each LA Country, as well as in other countries in the world, to regulate ABPM access and to widen the range of patients able to access the benefits of this technique.

Two-Day ABPM-Derived Indices and Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness are known cardiovascular risk factors in hemodialysis (HD) patients. This study examines the prognostic significance of 44-hour BP circadian rhythm and ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) in this population.

METHODS

A total of 80 HD patients underwent 44-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) with a TM-2430 monitor during a standard midweek interdialytic interval and followed up for 4.5 ± 1.7 years. The end point was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

About 76% of participants were hypertensive (40% uncontrolled), 62% were nondippers, and 23% risers during the first interdialytic day, whereas 73% and 44% in the second day, respectively. During follow-up, 31 patients (40%) died. These showed higher pulse pressure (PP) and AASI44 and AASI of the second interdialytic period. The incidence of all-cause mortality was higher in HD patients with AASI44 > median, i.e. >0.54 (interquartile range = 14) (54% vs. 28%, χ 2 = 5.3, P = 0.021) when compared with those with lower AASI44. Second, but not first-day ABPM-derived parameters, namely nondipping (log-rank χ 2 = 6.10, P = 0.0134) or reverse dipping status (log-rank χ 2 = 5.32, P = 0.210) and arterial stiffness index (log-rank χ 2 = 6.61, P = 0.0101) were significantly related to greater mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate a strong relationship between arterial stiffness and cardiovascular risk and support a wider use of 44-hour ABPM recording for risk stratification in HD patients.

Blood pressure phenotype reproducibility in CKD outpatients: a clinical practice report

Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is encouraged by recent hypertension guidelines for assessing BP phenotypes. These showed acceptable reproducibility in the short term, but few data exist about long-term reproducibility, particularly for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. We evaluated changes of the BP phenotypes at 6 and 12 months in 280 consecutive non-dialysis CKD outpatients (186 males, age 71 ± 12 years, eGFR 38 ± 13 ml/min/1.73), without any change in drug therapy. Elevated BP is defined as office BP > 140/90 and home BP > 135/85 mmHg for defining the following BP phenotypes: sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH); white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH); masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH); and controlled hypertension (CH). At baseline, the prevalence of the phenotypes was SUCH 36.6%, CH 30.1%, WUCH 25.4% and MUCH 7.9%, and it was similar at 6 months and 12 months. On the other hand, individual phenotype reproducibility at 12 months was poor both overall (38.0%) and across the different phenotypes (SUCH 53.9%, WUCH 32.4% and CH 32.1%, MUCH 9.1%). Patients who were not maintaining the same phenotype (non-concordant) were not distinguished by age, sex, BMI, eGFR, presence of diabetes or cardiovascular disease, or pharmacological therapy. When reproducibility of BP phenotypes both at 6 months and at 12 months was assessed, it was very low (19.6%), particularly for MUCH (0%), CH (14%) and WUCH (15.5%), while it was 31% for SUCH. In a CKD cohort, the overall prevalence of the different BP phenotypes defined by office and home BP remains constant over time. However, only 38% of patients maintained the same phenotype at 12 months, suggesting a poor reproducibility over time for the BP phenotypes.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the 21st century

In clinical practice, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) tends to be used solely for diagnosing hypertension, especially to identify white-coat and masked hypertension. However, ABPM can provide additional information to guide the management and drug treatment of hypertension. In this brief review, the general principles governing the use of ABPM in clinical practice, such as the devices and software, recording requirements, the thresholds for the day, night and 24-hour periods and how often to repeat ABPM are summarized. The use of ABPM for diagnosing, determining the efficacy of treatment, and assessing the long-term control of hypertension are discussed.

The relationship of volume overload and its control to hypertension in hemodialysis patients

Hypertension is highly prevalent and associated with poor clinical outcomes among individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD). Volume overload is a key modifiable contributor to hypertension and cardiovascular disease in the HD population. Despite their importance, assessment and treatment of volume overload and hypertension remain major clinical challenges and have substantial implications for both clinical outcomes and patient experiences of care. This review will summarize current data on the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and clinical consequences of hypertension and volume overload in HD patients. We will also identify priorities for future research studies.

Expert panel consensus recommendations for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in Asia: The HOPE Asia Network

Hypertension is an important public health issue because of its association with a number of significant diseases and adverse outcomes. However, there are important ethnic differences in the pathogenesis and cardio-/cerebrovascular consequences of hypertension. Given the large populations and rapidly aging demographic in Asian regions, optimal strategies to diagnose and manage hypertension are of high importance. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is an important out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement tool that should play a central role in hypertension detection and management. The use of ABPM is particularly important in Asia due to the specific features of hypertension in Asian patients, including a high prevalence of masked hypertension, disrupted BP variability with marked morning BP surge, and nocturnal hypertension. This HOPE Asia Network document summarizes region-specific literature on the relationship between ABPM parameters and cardiovascular risk and target organ damage, providing a rationale for consensus-based recommendations on the use of ABPM in Asia. The aim of these recommendations is to guide and improve clinical practice to facilitate optimal BP monitoring with the goal of optimizing patient management and expediting the efficient allocation of treatment and health care resources. This should contribute to the HOPE Asia Network mission of improving the management of hypertension and organ protection toward achieving "zero" cardiovascular events in Asia.

White Coat and Masked Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease: Importance of the Difference Between Office and Out-of-Office Blood Pressure Measurements

See Article Ku et al

Long-term blood pressure monitoring by office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure in renal transplant patients: a longitudinal study

Background

Renal transplant patients have a high prevalence of nocturnal hypertension, and hypertension misclassification by office blood pressure (BP) is quite common in these patients. The potential impact of hypertension misclassification by office BP on hypertension management in this population has never been analysed.

Methods

We performed a longitudinal study in a cohort of 260 clinically stable renal transplant patients. In all, 785 paired office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (24-hABPM) measurements over a median follow-up of 3.9 years were available in the whole cohort.

Results

A total of 74% of patients had nocturnal hypertension (&gt;120/70 mmHg). Average office BP and 24-hABPM remained quite stable over follow-up, as did the prevalence of nocturnal hypertension, which was 77% at the last observation. However, the global agreement between office BP and average 24 h, daytime and night-time BP was unsatisfactory (k-statistics 0.10–0.26). In 193 visits (25% of all visits) where office BP indicated the need of antihypertensive therapy institution or modification (BP &gt;140/90 mmHg), 24-hABPM was actually normal (&lt;130/80 mmHg), while in 94 visits (12%), 24-hABPM was in the hypertensive range while office BP was normal. Overall, in 37% of visits, office BP provided misleading therapeutic indications.

Conclusions

Hypertension misclassification by office BP is a common phenomenon in stable renal transplant patients on long-term follow-up. Office BP may lead to inappropriate therapeutic decisions in over one-third of follow-up visits in these patients.

Hypertension in patients on dialysis: diagnosis, mechanisms, and management

Hypertension (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg) is very common in patients undergoing regular dialysis, with a prevalence of 70-80%, and only the minority has adequate blood pressure (BP) control. In contrast to the unclear association of predialytic BP recordings with cardiovascular mortality, prospective studies showed that interdialytic BP, recorded as home BP or by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hemodialysis patients, associates more closely with mortality and cardiovascular events. Although BP is measured frequently in the dialysis treatment environment, aspects related to the measurement technique traditionally employed may be unsatisfactory. Several other tools are now available and being used in clinical trials and in clinical practice to evaluate and treat elevated BP in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. While we wait for the ongoing review of the CKD Blood Pressure KIDGO guidelines, there is no guideline for the dialysis population addressing this important issue. Thus, the objective of this review is to provide a critical analysis of the information available on the epidemiology, pathogenic mechanisms, and the main pillars involved in the management of blood pressure in stage 5-D CKD, based on current knowledge.

Association of Ambulatory Blood Pressure with All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients: Effects of Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the utility of ambulatory BP monitoring for risk prediction has been scarce and inconclusive in patients on hemodialysis. In addition, in cardiac diseases such as heart failure and atrial fibrillation (common among patients on hemodialysis), studies have found that parameters such as systolic BP (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) have inverse or nonlinear (U-shaped) associations with mortality.

METHODS

In total, 344 patients on hemodialysis (105 with atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or both) underwent ambulatory BP monitoring for 24 hours, starting before a dialysis session. The primary end point was all-cause mortality; the prespecified secondary end point was cardiovascular mortality. We performed linear and nonlinear Cox regression analyses for risk prediction to determine the associations between BP and study end points.

RESULTS

During the mean 37.6-month follow-up, 115 patients died (47 from a cardiovascular cause). SBP and PP showed a U-shaped association with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the cohort. In linear subgroup analysis, SBP and PP were independent risk predictors and showed a significant inverse relationship to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation or heart failure. In patients without these conditions, these associations were in the opposite direction. SBP and PP were significant independent risk predictors for cardiovascular mortality; PP was a significant independent risk predictor for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence for the U-shaped association between peripheral ambulatory SBP or PP and mortality in patients on hemodialysis. Furthermore, it suggests that underlying cardiac disease can explain the opposite direction of associations.

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.

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

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

Wearable sensors: can they benefit patients with chronic kidney disease?

INTRODUCTION

This article ponders upon wearable medical measurement devices in relation to Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and its' associated comorbidities - and whether these might benefit CKD-patients. We aimed to map the intersection(s) of nephrology and wearable sensor technology to help technologists understand medical aspects, and clinicians to understand technological possibilities that are available (or soon will become so). Areas covered: A structured literature search on main comorbidities and complications CKD patients suffer from, was used to steer mini-reviews on wearable sensor technologies clustered around 3 themes being: Cardiovascular-related, diabetes-related and physical fitness/frailty. This review excludes wearable dialysis - although also strongly enabled by miniaturization - because that highly important theme deserves separate in-depth reviewing. Expert commentary: Continuous progress in integrated electronics miniaturization enormously lowered price, size, weight and energy consumption of electronic sensors, processing power, memory and wireless connectivity. These combined factors boost opportunities for wearable medical sensors. Such devices can be regarded as enablers for: Remote monitoring, influencing human behaviour (exercise, dietary), enhanced home care, remote consults, patient education and peer networks. However, to make wearable medical devices succeed, the challenge to fit them into health care structures will be dominant over the challenge to realize the bare technologies themselves.

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

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