| Literature DB >> 24682891 |
Satoshi Iimuro1, Enyu Imai, Tsuyoshi Watanabe, Kosaku Nitta, Tadao Akizawa, Seiichi Matsuo, Hirofumi Makino, Yasuo Ohashi, Akira Hishida.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High prevalence of masked hypertension as well as persistent hypertension was observed in the Chronic Kidney Disease Japan Cohort (CKD-JAC) study. We proposed a novel indicator of blood pressure (BP) load, hyperbaric area index (HBI), calculated from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) data. The characteristic of this index and its relationship with kidney function were also evaluated.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24682891 PMCID: PMC4335270 DOI: 10.1007/s10157-014-0965-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Exp Nephrol ISSN: 1342-1751 Impact factor: 2.801
Fig. 1Target subjects. We had not set the exclusion criteria for ABPM. Protocol states the two following conditions: (1) patient consent was necessary for ABPM itself, separately from the consent to CKD-JAC enrollment. (2) Performed ABPM within half year from CKD-JAC study entry. According to the Japanese ABPM guideline, there was no set standard recommendation for how many time during the day or night to measure. Therefore, in our CKD-JAC, we manually examined all data from 1,117 patients and excluded the following 42 data from analysis
Fig. 2Hyperbaric area index (HBI). a Schematic representation of HBI. A trend graph was made from ABPM data (BP on vertical axis and time on horizontal axis) and the area of the graph [hyperbaric area (mmHg×h)] that exceeds baseline (135/85 mmHg when awaked and 120/70 mmHg when asleep) was calculated for systolic BP and diastolic BP. This value was adjusted per 24 h and used as HBI. b Distributions of HBI by sex. Distributions of HBI were right-skewed. However, HBI was analyzed with real number, because of more suited to clinical interpretation, after considering well the logarithmic transformation. Subjects were divided into two groups at the 75th percentile HBI value for each gender
Characteristics of study participants
| Female | Male | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 393 (36.6) | 682 (63.4) |
| Age (year) | 58.5 ± 12.3 | 62.0 ± 10.6 |
| CKD stage | ||
| 3 | 169 (43.0) | 302 (44.3) |
| 4 | 165 (42.0) | 284 (41.6) |
| 5 | 59 (15.0) | 96 (14.1) |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 28.7 ± 12.6 | 28.8 ± 11.9 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.6 ± 4.3 | 23.6 ± 3.3 |
| Overweight (BMI ≥25) | 78 (19.9) | 182 (26.7) |
| Obesity (BMI ≥30) | 23 (5.85) | 29 (4.3) |
| Antihypertensive medicine use | 343 (87.3) | 632 (92.7) |
| Office SBP (mmHg) | 129.8 ± 18.6 | 132.1 ± 17.8 |
| Office DBP (mmHg) | 76.3 ± 11.2 | 77.6 ± 11.5 |
| Nocturnal BP change pattern | ||
| Extreme dipper | 40 (10.2) | 65 (9.5) |
| Dipper | 141 (35.9) | 254 (37.2) |
| Non dipper | 148 (37.7) | 260 (38.1) |
| Riser | 64 (16.3) | 103 (15.1) |
| Morning BP surge (≥40 mmHg) | 55 (14.0) | 92 (13.5) |
| Morning BP surge (mmHg) | 21.6 ± 16.6 | 23.5 ± 16.3 |
| Diabetes mellitusa | 128 (32.6) | 253 (37.1) |
| Proteinuriab | 345 (89.6) | 581 (88.0) |
| Nocturia | 50 (12.8) | 154 (22.8) |
| Much difficulty in sleep | 75 (19.1) | 143 (21.2) |
| Examination period | ||
| Summer | 102 (26.0) | 188 (27.6) |
| Winter | 291 (74.1) | 494 (72.4) |
Data were n (%) or mean ± SD. The data of 1,075 participants who underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring were summarized
BP blood pressure, CKD chronic kidney disease, eGFR estimated GFR, BMI body mass index, SBP systolic BP, DBP diastolic BP
aDiabetes mellitus was diagnosed when at least one of the following criteria was met: diabetes mellitus described as an underlying disease or complication of CKD as reported by a physician, hemoglobin A1c of >6.5 % (National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program), or concomitant use of antihyperglycemic drugs including insulin
bProteinuria was identified when the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio from spot urine was ≥30 (mg/g creatinine)
Characteristics of systolic hyperbaric area index (HBI)
|
| Female |
|
| Male |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 393 | 176.5 ± 208.1 | 682 | 242.4 ± 252.5 | |||
| Categorical variables | ||||||
| Age | ||||||
| 20 | 7 | 133.5 ± 224.4 | 0.008 | 6 | 158.6 ± 102.1 | 0.09 |
| 30 | 36 | 110.7 ± 183.4 | 31 | 141.6 ± 177.9 | ||
| 40 | 46 | 145.8 ± 230.0 | 46 | 211.7 ± 225.1 | ||
| 50 | 90 | 140.6 ± 168.9 | 146 | 224.6 ± 234.2 | ||
| 60 | 130 | 193.8 ± 211.9 | 266 | 252.5 ± 265.0 | ||
| 70 | 84 | 236.7 ± 222.7 | 187 | 268.6 ± 264.2 | ||
| CKD stage | ||||||
| 3 | 169 | 147.3 ± 181.9 | 0.03 | 302 | 196.7 ± 219.5 | <0.001 |
| 4 | 165 | 188.6 ± 222.1 | 284 | 261.7 ± 260.9 | ||
| 5 | 59 | 226.2 ± 228.0 | 96 | 328.8 ± 293.8 | ||
| Overweight | ||||||
| No | 315 | 161.1 ± 205.9 | 0.003 | 500 | 222.9 ± 238.1 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 78 | 238.7 ± 206.5 | 182 | 295.8 ± 282.4 | ||
| Obesity | ||||||
| No | 370 | 168.2 ± 205.9 | 0.002 | 653 | 241.2 ± 253.8 | 0.59 |
| Yes | 23 | 309.0 ± 201.9 | 29 | 267.3 ± 224.2 | ||
| Antihypertensive medicine use | ||||||
| No | 50 | 158.5 ± 207.2 | 0.51 | 50 | 146.7 ± 162.3 | 0.005 |
| Yes | 343 | 179.1 ± 208.4 | 632 | 249.9 ± 256.9 | ||
| Nocturnal BP change pattern | ||||||
| Extreme dipper | 40 | 146.0 ± 169.0 | <0.001 | 65 | 180.5 ± 175.4 | <0.001 |
| Dipper | 141 | 133.3 ± 157.5 | 254 | 197.0 ± 216.9 | ||
| Non dipper | 148 | 172.1 ± 213.8 | 260 | 263.9 ± 254.8 | ||
| Riser | 64 | 300.8 ± 263.2 | 103 | 338.7 ± 326.8 | ||
| Morning BP surge | ||||||
| No | 338 | 166.8 ± 205.3 | 0.02 | 590 | 235.2 ± 253.3 | 0.06 |
| Yes | 55 | 236.1 ± 217.2 | 92 | 288.5 ± 244.0 | ||
| Diabetes mellitus | ||||||
| No | 265 | 139.0 ± 187.9 | <0.001 | 429 | 195.3 ± 213.6 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 128 | 254.0 ± 226.6 | 253 | 322.2 ± 291.0 | ||
| Proteinuria | ||||||
| No | 40 | 66.5 ± 82.8 | <0.001 | 79 | 126.2 ± 149.0 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 345 | 190.0 ± 215.7 | 581 | 258.4 ± 257.9 | ||
| Nocturia | ||||||
| No | 341 | 163.9 ± 200.9 | 0.003 | 523 | 224.7 ± 246.7 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 50 | 257.9 ± 238.1 | 154 | 302.1 ± 264.1 | ||
| Much difficulty in sleep | ||||||
| No | 317 | 169.4 ± 199.8 | 0.15 | 532 | 239.0 ± 150.6 | 0.71 |
| Yes | 75 | 208.3 ± 239.7 | 143 | 247.9 ± 255.1 | ||
| Season | ||||||
| Summer | 102 | 124.3 ± 160.0 | 0.003 | 188 | 201.8 ± 221.6 | 0.01 |
| Winter | 291 | 194.8 ± 219.8 | 494 | 257.8 ± 261.9 | ||
| Continuous variables | ||||||
| Age (year) | 30.3 (13.6, 46.8) | <0.001 | 29.0 (11.1, 46.8) | 0.002 | ||
| eGFR (10 mL/min/1.73 m2) | −26.0 (−42.2, −9.8) | 0.002 | −39.7 (−55.4, −24.0) | <0.001 | ||
| SBP (10 mmHg) | 52.6 (42.8, 62.4) | <0.001 | 58.5 (48.9, 68.2) | <0.001 | ||
| DBP (10 mmHg) | 45.8 (27.8, 63.7) | <0.001 | 39.2 (22.9, 55.6) | <0.001 | ||
| 24-h mean SBP (5 mmHg) | 58.5 (55.8, 61.2) | <0.001 | 67.9 (65.6, 70.1) | <0.001 | ||
| 24-h mean SBP (10 mmHg) | 117.0 (111.7, 122.4) | <0.001 | 135.7 (131.3, 140.1) | <0.001 | ||
| BMI (1 kg/m2) | 11.2 (6.6, 15.8) | <0.001 | 9.0 (3.1, 14.9) | 0.003 | ||
| Nocturnal BP change (10 %) | −60.9 (−83.1, −38.7) | <0.001 | −61.1 (−82.2, −40.0) | <0.001 | ||
| Morning surge (10 mmHg) | 14.2 (1.7, 26.6) | 0.03 | 5.5 (−6.2, 17.1) | 0.36 | ||
Data were mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated. The relationship between HBI and individual factors was evaluated in males and females. The p values for continuous variables were used t test (two groups) or an analysis of variance (three or more groups), and the p values for categorical variables were used simple liner regression analysis
Characteristic of systolic hyperbaric area index (HBI): multivariable analysis
| Difference in systolic HBI (mmHg×h) |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Male(versus female) | 54.7 | <0.001 |
| Age (10 years) | 2.4 | 0.70 |
| eGFR (10 mL/min/1.73 m2) | −16.5 | 0.003 |
| Proteinuria | 43.5 | 0.05 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 72.6 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 5.8 | 0.001 |
| SBP (10 mmHg) | 44.0 | <0.001 |
| Nocturnal BP change (10 %) | −47.1 | <0.001 |
| Nocturia | 46.4 | 0.007 |
| Much difficulty in sleep | −5.8 | 0.71 |
| Winter (versus Summer) | 51.6 | <0.001 |
Explanatory variables were chosen with sex and p value of ≤0.1 on univariate analysis. If there were several variables which were almost same index, a variable was chosen as the indicator on the basis of being easy to interpret clinically, such as eGFR as a representative for renal function, BMI for obesity and nocturnal BP change (NBPC) for journal BP fluctuation
Fig. 3ROC curve analysis to discriminate low renal function ROC curves for office SBP (a), 24-h SBP (b), HBI (c) and all of them (d). Decreased renal function was defined as 25th eGFR percentile or lower. AUCs of office SBP were 0.58/0.59/0.58 (all/female/male), those of 24-h SBP were 0.61/0.62/0.61 (same as above) and those of systolic HBI were 0.61/0.61/0.61 (same as above). Since there are not apparent differences among ROC curves of all subjects, females and males, only ROC curves of all subjects were shown. Nonparametric approach to compare these three ROC curves was performed and office SBP was used as the reference. p value between office SBP and 24-h mean SBP was 0.16/0.40/0.27 (all/females/males), and that between office SBP and HBI was 0.23/0.71/0.25 (same as above). (- — - office SBP; - - - - 24-h mean SBP; —— systolic HBI)
Fig. 4Box-and-whisker plots on eGFR for males and females. Subjects were divided into four groups by NBPC (<10 % or ≥10 %) and with/without BP load, and the box-and-whisker plots on eGFR were made to clarify the difference among them. The length of the box represents the interquartile range (the distance between the 25th and the 75th percentiles). The dot in the box interior represents the mean. The horizontal line in the box interior represented the median. The vertical lines issuing from the box extended to the minimum and maximum values of the analysis variable. If the minimum value was under lower fence or the maximum value is over upper fence, these observations were plotted. Upper fence is 1.5 interquartile range (IQR) above 75th percentile and lower fence was 1.5 IQR below 25th percentile
Analysis of variance of the relation between eGFR and two indicators calculated from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM)
| Female | DF | SS | MS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 3 | 1872.7 | 624.2 | 4.03 | 0.008 |
| Error | 389 | 60242.6 | 154.9 | ||
| Corrected total | 392 | 62115.3 |
To determine the independent and combined effects of NBPC (<10 % or ≥10 %) and BP load (HBI <75 % percentile or ≥75 % percentile) on eGFR, two-way ANOVA was performed. The interaction terms of these two variables were not significant in either males or females
DF degrees of freedom, SS sum of squares, MS mean square
Multiple regression analysis was performed with eGFR as a dependent variable
| Model A | Model B | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference in eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) |
| Difference in eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) |
| |
| Male (versus Female) | 1.29 | 0.09 | 1.23 | 0.11 |
| Age (10 years) | −2.15 | <0.001 | −2.13 | <0.001 |
| NBPC (10 %) | 0.48 | 0.08 | 0.47 | 0.27 |
| Systolic HBI (100 mmHg×h) | −0.72 | <0.001 | −0.70 | <0.001 |
| Much difficulty in sleep | −0.46 | 0.58 | ||
| Winter (versus summer) | −0.73 | 0.41 | ||
Model A: sex, age, NBPC and BP load were included as independent variables. NBPC and HBI were dealt with as continuous values. The base unit was 10 % for NBPC, and 100 (mmHg×h) for HBI
Model B: Model A plus sleep quality and season