Elaine Ku1,2, Charles E McCulloch3, Bradley A Warady4, Susan L Furth5, Barbara A Grimes3, Mark M Mitsnefes6. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, elaine.ku@ucsf.edu. 2. Division of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, and. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California. 4. Division of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri. 5. Division of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and. 6. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: and objectives Our objective was to determine whether clinic BPs (taken at either a single visit or two sequential visits) are inferior to ambulatory BPs in their ability to discriminate risk of adverse outcomes in children with CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We included 513 participants of the CKD in Children Study who had clinic BPs and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring performed during similar timeframes. Predictors of interest were systolic BPs taken at a single visit or two repeated visits within a 1-year period compared with mean wake and sleep systolic ambulatory BPs. Outcomes were left ventricular hypertrophy and ESKD. We determined the ability for each BP parameter to provide risk discrimination using c statistics. RESULTS: During mean follow-up of 3.5 years, 123 participants developed ESKD. In cross-sectional unadjusted analysis, every 0.1 increase in systolic BP index was associated with a 2.0 times higher odds of left ventricular hypertrophy (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.8) by clinic BPs versus 1.8 times higher odds (95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.4) by ambulatory wake BP. The c statistic was highest for clinic BP (c=0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.73) but similar to ambulatory wake BP (c=0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.71) for the discrimination of left ventricular hypertrophy. In longitudinal unadjusted analysis, every 0.1 increase in systolic BP index was associated with a higher risk of ESKD using repeated clinic (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 1.8) versus ambulatory wake BP (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.0). Unadjusted c statistics were the same for wake (c=0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.67) and clinic systolic BPs (c=0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.66) for discriminating risk of ESKD. CONCLUSIONS: Clinic BPs taken in a protocol-driven setting are not consistently inferior to ambulatory BP in the discrimination of BP-related adverse outcomes in children with CKD.
BACKGROUND: and objectives Our objective was to determine whether clinic BPs (taken at either a single visit or two sequential visits) are inferior to ambulatory BPs in their ability to discriminate risk of adverse outcomes in children with CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We included 513 participants of the CKD in Children Study who had clinic BPs and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring performed during similar timeframes. Predictors of interest were systolic BPs taken at a single visit or two repeated visits within a 1-year period compared with mean wake and sleep systolic ambulatory BPs. Outcomes were left ventricular hypertrophy and ESKD. We determined the ability for each BP parameter to provide risk discrimination using c statistics. RESULTS: During mean follow-up of 3.5 years, 123 participants developed ESKD. In cross-sectional unadjusted analysis, every 0.1 increase in systolic BP index was associated with a 2.0 times higher odds of left ventricular hypertrophy (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.8) by clinic BPs versus 1.8 times higher odds (95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.4) by ambulatory wake BP. The c statistic was highest for clinic BP (c=0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.73) but similar to ambulatory wake BP (c=0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.71) for the discrimination of left ventricular hypertrophy. In longitudinal unadjusted analysis, every 0.1 increase in systolic BP index was associated with a higher risk of ESKD using repeated clinic (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 1.8) versus ambulatory wake BP (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.0). Unadjusted c statistics were the same for wake (c=0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.67) and clinic systolic BPs (c=0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.66) for discriminating risk of ESKD. CONCLUSIONS: Clinic BPs taken in a protocol-driven setting are not consistently inferior to ambulatory BP in the discrimination of BP-related adverse outcomes in children with CKD.
Authors: Heather M Johnson; Pamela S Douglas; Sathanur R Srinivasan; M Gene Bond; Rong Tang; Shengxu Li; Wei Chen; Gerald S Berenson; James H Stein Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Bradley A Warady; Alison G Abraham; George J Schwartz; Craig S Wong; Alvaro Muñoz; Aisha Betoko; Mark Mitsnefes; Frederick Kaskel; Larry A Greenbaum; Robert H Mak; Joseph Flynn; Marva M Moxey-Mims; Susan Furth Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: José Boggia; Yan Li; Lutgarde Thijs; Tine W Hansen; Masahiro Kikuya; Kristina Björklund-Bodegård; Tom Richart; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Lind; Hans Ibsen; Yutaka Imai; Jiguang Wang; Edgardo Sandoya; Eoin O'Brien; Jan A Staessen Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elke Wühl; Antonella Trivelli; Stefano Picca; Mieczyslaw Litwin; Amira Peco-Antic; Aleksandra Zurowska; Sara Testa; Augustina Jankauskiene; Sevinc Emre; Alberto Caldas-Afonso; Ali Anarat; Patrick Niaudet; Sevgi Mir; Aysin Bakkaloglu; Barbara Enke; Giovanni Montini; Ann-Margret Wingen; Peter Sallay; Nikola Jeck; Ulla Berg; Salim Caliskan; Simone Wygoda; Katharina Hohbach-Hohenfellner; Jiri Dusek; Tomasz Urasinski; Klaus Arbeiter; Thomas Neuhaus; Jutta Gellermann; Dorota Drozdz; Michel Fischbach; Kristina Möller; Marianne Wigger; Licia Peruzzi; Otto Mehls; Franz Schaefer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; Nancy Houston Miller; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Lawrence R Krakoff; Nancy T Artinian; David Goff Journal: Hypertension Date: 2008-05-22 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Joseph T Flynn; Mark Mitsnefes; Christopher Pierce; Steven R Cole; Rulan S Parekh; Susan L Furth; Bradley A Warady Journal: Hypertension Date: 2008-08-25 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Artemio Mojón; Diana E Ayala; Luis Piñeiro; Alfonso Otero; Juan J Crespo; Ana Moyá; Julia Bóveda; Jesús Pérez de Lis; José R Fernández; Ramón C Hermida Journal: Chronobiol Int Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: Jason Lee; Charles E McCulloch; Joseph T Flynn; Joshua Samuels; Bradley A Warady; Susan L Furth; Divya Seth; Barbara A Grimes; Mark M Mitsnefes; Elaine Ku Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Michael E Seifert; Devesh S Dahale; Margret Kamel; Pamela D Winterberg; Gina-Marie Barletta; Craig W Belsha; Abanti Chaudhuri; Joseph T Flynn; Rouba Garro; Roshan P George; Jens W Goebel; David B Kershaw; Debora Matossian; Jason Misurac; Corina Nailescu; Christina R Nguyen; Meghan Pearl; Ari Pollack; Cozumel S Pruette; Pamela Singer; Judith S VanSickle; Priya Verghese; Bradley A Warady; Andrew Warmin; Patricia L Weng; Larysa Wickman; Amy C Wilson; David K Hooper Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 7.124