Manish M Sood1,2,3, Ayub Akbari4,5, Doug Manuel2,3,5,6, Marcel Ruzicka4, Swapnil Hiremath4, Deborah Zimmerman4, Brenden McCormick4, Monica Taljaard2,3,5. 1. Division of Nephrology, msood@toh.ca. 2. Insititute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; and. 4. Division of Nephrology. 5. School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Universality of Ottawa. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The association of individual BP components with changes in eGFR in patients with late-stage CKD is unknown. The objectives of our study were to examine the associations of systolic BP, diastolic BP, and pulse pressure with continuous temporal changes in eGFR and an eGFR decline ≥30% in late-stage CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study (2010-2015) of patients with CKD in a multidisciplinary CKD clinic with an eGFR≤30. The associations of repeat measures of BP (systolic BP, diastolic BP, and pulse pressure) with eGFR were examined using general linear mixed models. The associations of BP components and eGFR decline ≥30% were examined with time-varying Cox models. RESULTS: In total, 1203 patients were followed for a median of 548 days (interquartile range, 292-913), with an average of 6.7 visits and BP measures per patient. Mean baseline systolic BP, diastolic BP, pulse pressure, and eGFR were 139.2 mmHg, 73.2 mmHg, 64.9 mmHg, and 16.8 ml/min, respectively. Systolic BP and diastolic BP measures over time were statistically significantly associated with changes in eGFR (P<0.001), whereas pulse pressure was not. Patients with extremes of systolic BP (<105 or >170) and high diastolic BP (>90) measures were at a higher risk of GFR decline ≥30% (systolic BP <105: hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 2.34; systolic BP >170: hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.49; referent systolic BP =121-130; diastolic BP =81-90: hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.86; diastolic BP >90: hazard ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 2.77; referent diastolic BP =61-70). The findings were consistent after multiple sensitivity analyses. Pulse pressure was not significantly associated with risk of eGFR decline. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred to a multidisciplinary care clinic with late-stage CKD, only extremes of systolic BP and elevations of diastolic BP were associated with eGFR decline.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The association of individual BP components with changes in eGFR in patients with late-stage CKD is unknown. The objectives of our study were to examine the associations of systolic BP, diastolic BP, and pulse pressure with continuous temporal changes in eGFR and an eGFR decline ≥30% in late-stage CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study (2010-2015) of patients with CKD in a multidisciplinary CKD clinic with an eGFR≤30. The associations of repeat measures of BP (systolic BP, diastolic BP, and pulse pressure) with eGFR were examined using general linear mixed models. The associations of BP components and eGFR decline ≥30% were examined with time-varying Cox models. RESULTS: In total, 1203 patients were followed for a median of 548 days (interquartile range, 292-913), with an average of 6.7 visits and BP measures per patient. Mean baseline systolic BP, diastolic BP, pulse pressure, and eGFR were 139.2 mmHg, 73.2 mmHg, 64.9 mmHg, and 16.8 ml/min, respectively. Systolic BP and diastolic BP measures over time were statistically significantly associated with changes in eGFR (P<0.001), whereas pulse pressure was not. Patients with extremes of systolic BP (<105 or >170) and high diastolic BP (>90) measures were at a higher risk of GFR decline ≥30% (systolic BP <105: hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 2.34; systolic BP >170: hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.49; referent systolic BP =121-130; diastolic BP =81-90: hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.86; diastolic BP >90: hazard ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 2.77; referent diastolic BP =61-70). The findings were consistent after multiple sensitivity analyses. Pulse pressure was not significantly associated with risk of eGFR decline. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred to a multidisciplinary care clinic with late-stage CKD, only extremes of systolic BP and elevations of diastolic BP were associated with eGFR decline.
Authors: Ann M O'Hare; Adam Batten; Nilka Ríos Burrows; Meda E Pavkov; Leslie Taylor; Indra Gupta; Jeff Todd-Stenberg; Charles Maynard; Rudolph A Rodriguez; Fliss E M Murtagh; Eric B Larson; Desmond E Williams Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-02-04 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Csaba P Kovesdy; Anthony J Bleyer; Miklos Z Molnar; Jennie Z Ma; John J Sim; William C Cushman; L Darryl Quarles; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Liang Li; Brad C Astor; Julia Lewis; Bo Hu; Lawrence J Appel; Michael S Lipkowitz; Robert D Toto; Xuelei Wang; Jackson T Wright; Tom H Greene Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Amanda H Anderson; Wei Yang; Raymond R Townsend; Qiang Pan; Glenn M Chertow; John W Kusek; Jeanne Charleston; Jiang He; RadhaKrishna Kallem; James P Lash; Edgar R Miller; Mahboob Rahman; Susan Steigerwalt; Matthew Weir; Jackson T Wright; Harold I Feldman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kaberi Dasgupta; Robert R Quinn; Kelly B Zarnke; Doreen M Rabi; Pietro Ravani; Stella S Daskalopoulou; Simon W Rabkin; Luc Trudeau; Ross D Feldman; Lyne Cloutier; Ally Prebtani; Robert J Herman; Simon L Bacon; Richard E Gilbert; Marcel Ruzicka; Donald W McKay; Tavis S Campbell; Steven Grover; George Honos; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Peter Bolli; Thomas W Wilson; Patrice Lindsay; Michael D Hill; Shelagh B Coutts; Gord Gubitz; Mark Gelfer; Michel Vallée; G V Ramesh Prasad; Marcel Lebel; Donna McLean; J Malcolm O Arnold; Gordon W Moe; Jonathan G Howlett; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Pierre Larochelle; Lawrence A Leiter; Charlotte Jones; Richard I Ogilvie; Vincent Woo; Janusz Kaczorowski; Kevin D Burns; Robert J Petrella; Swapnil Hiremath; Alain Milot; James A Stone; Denis Drouin; Kim L Lavoie; Maxime Lamarre-Cliche; Guy Tremblay; Pavel Hamet; George Fodor; S George Carruthers; George B Pylypchuk; Ellen Burgess; Richard Lewanczuk; George K Dresser; S Brian Penner; Robert A Hegele; Philip A McFarlane; Milan Khara; Andrew Pipe; Paul Oh; Peter Selby; Mukul Sharma; Debra J Reid; Sheldon W Tobe; Raj S Padwal; Luc Poirier Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: William C Cushman; Gregory W Evans; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey A Cutler; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jan N Basile; Marshall A Corson; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Lois Katz; Kevin A Peterson; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; J Thomas Bigger; Hertzel C Gerstein; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carmen A Peralta; Keith C Norris; Suying Li; Tara I Chang; Manjula K Tamura; Stacey E Jolly; George Bakris; Peter A McCullough; Michael Shlipak Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-01-09
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Charles E McCulloch; Mahboob Rahman; John W Kusek; Amanda H Anderson; Dawei Xie; Raymond R Townsend; Claudia M Lora; Jackson Wright; Alan S Go; Akinlolu Ojo; Arnold Alper; Eva Lustigova; Magda Cuevas; Radhakrishna Kallem; Chi-Yuan Hsu Journal: Hypertension Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Xinfang Xie; Emily Atkins; Jicheng Lv; Alexander Bennett; Bruce Neal; Toshiharu Ninomiya; Mark Woodward; Stephen MacMahon; Fiona Turnbull; Graham S Hillis; John Chalmers; Jonathan Mant; Abdul Salam; Kazem Rahimi; Vlado Perkovic; Anthony Rodgers Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 79.321