Roberto Minutolo1, Francis B Gabbai2, Rajiv Agarwal3, Paolo Chiodini4, Silvio Borrelli5, Vincenzo Bellizzi6, Felice Nappi7, Giovanna Stanzione5, Giuseppe Conte5, Luca De Nicola5. 1. Division of Nephrology, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: roberto.minutolo@unina2.it. 2. Department of Medicine, VA San Diego Healthcare System and University of California at San Diego Medical School, San Diego, CA. 3. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine and Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN. 4. Department of Medicine and Public Health, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. 5. Division of Nephrology, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. 6. Nephrology Division, University Hospital, Salerno, Italy. 7. Nephrology Division, County Hospital, Nola, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the effect of having clinic and/or ambulatory blood pressures (BPs) not at goal on cardiorenal risk in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD). STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter prospective study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 489 consecutive hypertensive patients with CKD (stages 1-5) with concomitant assessment of ambulatory and clinic BPs followed up in tertiary nephrology clinics. PREDICTORS: Achievement of goal for ambulatory (day- and night-time BPs <135/85 and <120/70mmHg, respectively) and clinic (<140/90mmHg) BPs was used to create 4 BP groups: clinic and ambulatory BPs at goal (group 1), clinic BP above goal and ambulatory BP at goal (group 2), clinic BP at goal and ambulatory BP above goal (group 3), and clinic and ambulatory BPs above goal (group 4). OUTCOMES: Composite cardiovascular event outcome (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, revascularization, peripheral vascular disease, and nontraumatic amputation) and a composite renal outcome (maintenance dialysis therapy or death). MEASUREMENTS: Clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BPs. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.4±14.2 (SD) years; 41% were women, and diabetes and previous cardiovascular disease were present in 36% and 30%, respectively. Groups 1-4 contained 16.8%, 22.1%, 14.5%, and 46.6%, respectively, of the overall number of participants. Median follow-up was 5.2 years. Compared to group 1, the adjusted risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome was higher in groups 3 (HR, 3.17; 95%CI, 1.50-6.69) and 4 (HR, 2.83; 95%CI, 1.50-5.34), but not in group 2 (HR, 1.55; 95%CI, 0.75-3.19). Similarly, the risk of the composite renal outcome was higher in groups 3 (HR, 3.59; 95%CI, 2.05-6.27) and 4 (HR, 2.96; 95%CI, 1.83-4.78), but not group 2 (HR, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.67-2.27). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that these results were independent from the thresholds used for defining groups. LIMITATIONS: Only white patients were enrolled. Observational design does not allow for causality to be established. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treated CKD, clinic BP above goal and ambulatory BP at goal identify a low-risk condition, whereas clinic BP at goal and ambulatory BP above goal are associated with higher cardiorenal risk, similar to that observed in patients with both clinic and ambulatory BPs above goal.
BACKGROUND: We investigated the effect of having clinic and/or ambulatory blood pressures (BPs) not at goal on cardiorenal risk in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD). STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter prospective study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 489 consecutive hypertensivepatients with CKD (stages 1-5) with concomitant assessment of ambulatory and clinic BPs followed up in tertiary nephrology clinics. PREDICTORS: Achievement of goal for ambulatory (day- and night-time BPs <135/85 and <120/70mmHg, respectively) and clinic (<140/90mmHg) BPs was used to create 4 BP groups: clinic and ambulatory BPs at goal (group 1), clinic BP above goal and ambulatory BP at goal (group 2), clinic BP at goal and ambulatory BP above goal (group 3), and clinic and ambulatory BPs above goal (group 4). OUTCOMES: Composite cardiovascular event outcome (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, revascularization, peripheral vascular disease, and nontraumatic amputation) and a composite renal outcome (maintenance dialysis therapy or death). MEASUREMENTS: Clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BPs. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.4±14.2 (SD) years; 41% were women, and diabetes and previous cardiovascular disease were present in 36% and 30%, respectively. Groups 1-4 contained 16.8%, 22.1%, 14.5%, and 46.6%, respectively, of the overall number of participants. Median follow-up was 5.2 years. Compared to group 1, the adjusted risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome was higher in groups 3 (HR, 3.17; 95%CI, 1.50-6.69) and 4 (HR, 2.83; 95%CI, 1.50-5.34), but not in group 2 (HR, 1.55; 95%CI, 0.75-3.19). Similarly, the risk of the composite renal outcome was higher in groups 3 (HR, 3.59; 95%CI, 2.05-6.27) and 4 (HR, 2.96; 95%CI, 1.83-4.78), but not group 2 (HR, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.67-2.27). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that these results were independent from the thresholds used for defining groups. LIMITATIONS: Only white patients were enrolled. Observational design does not allow for causality to be established. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treated CKD, clinic BP above goal and ambulatory BP at goal identify a low-risk condition, whereas clinic BP at goal and ambulatory BP above goal are associated with higher cardiorenal risk, similar to that observed in patients with both clinic and ambulatory BPs above goal.
Authors: Paul E Drawz; Arnold B Alper; Amanda H Anderson; Carolyn S Brecklin; Jeanne Charleston; Jing Chen; Rajat Deo; Michael J Fischer; Jiang He; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Yonghong Huan; Martin G Keane; John W Kusek; Gail K Makos; Edgar R Miller; Elsayed Z Soliman; Susan P Steigerwalt; Jonathan J Taliercio; Raymond R Townsend; Matthew R Weir; Jackson T Wright; Dawei Xie; Mahboob Rahman Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Sante D Pierdomenico; Anna M Pierdomenico; Francesca Coccina; Denis L Clement; Marc L De Buyzere; Dirk A De Bacquer; Iddo Z Ben-Dov; Wanpen Vongpatanasin; José R Banegas; Luis M Ruilope; Lutgarde Thijs; Jan A Staessen Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Roy O Mathew; Jerome Fleg; Janani Rangaswami; Bo Cai; Arif Asif; Mandeep S Sidhu; Sripal Bangalore Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Adamasco Cupisti; R M Bruno; A Puntoni; E Varricchio; E Giglio; O Meniconi; C Zullo; M Barsotti; M F Egidi; L Ghiadoni Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Paul E Drawz; Nicholas M Pajewski; Jeffrey T Bates; Natalie A Bello; William C Cushman; Jamie P Dwyer; Lawrence J Fine; David C Goff; William E Haley; Marie Krousel-Wood; Andrew McWilliams; Dena E Rifkin; Yelena Slinin; Addison Taylor; Raymond Townsend; Barry Wall; Jackson T Wright; Mahboob Rahman Journal: Hypertension Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Gilad Hamdani; Edward J Nehus; Coral D Hanevold; Judith Sebestyen Van Sickle; Robert Woroniecki; Scott E Wenderfer; David K Hooper; Douglas Blowey; Amy Wilson; Bradley A Warady; Mark M Mitsnefes Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.939