BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Short-term BP variability (derived from 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring) and long-term BP variability (from clinic visit to clinic visit) are directly related to risk for cardiovascular events, but these relationships have been scarcely investigated in patients with CKD, and their prognostic value in this population is unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a cohort of 402 patients with CKD, we assessed associations of short- and long-term systolic BP variability with a composite end point of death or cardiovascular event. Variability was defined as the standard deviation of observed BP measurements. We further tested the prognostic value of these parameters for risk discrimination and reclassification. RESULTS: Mean ± SD short-term systolic BP variability was 12.6±3.3 mm Hg, and mean ± SD long-term systolic BP variability was 12.7±5.1 mm Hg. For short-term BP variability, 125 participants experienced the composite end point over a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 2.3-8.6 years). For long-term BP variability, 110 participants experienced the composite end point over a median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0-7.5 years). In adjusted analyses, long-term BP variability was significantly associated with the composite end point (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.51 per 5-mm Hg higher SD of office systolic BP), but short-term systolic BP variability was not (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.25 per 5-mm Hg higher SD of 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP). Neither estimate of BP variability improved risk discrimination or reclassification compared with a simple risk prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CKD, long-term but not short-term systolic BP variability is related to the risk of death and cardiovascular events. However, BP variability has a limited role for prediction in CKD.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Short-term BP variability (derived from 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring) and long-term BP variability (from clinic visit to clinic visit) are directly related to risk for cardiovascular events, but these relationships have been scarcely investigated in patients with CKD, and their prognostic value in this population is unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a cohort of 402 patients with CKD, we assessed associations of short- and long-term systolic BP variability with a composite end point of death or cardiovascular event. Variability was defined as the standard deviation of observed BP measurements. We further tested the prognostic value of these parameters for risk discrimination and reclassification. RESULTS: Mean ± SD short-term systolic BP variability was 12.6±3.3 mm Hg, and mean ± SD long-term systolic BP variability was 12.7±5.1 mm Hg. For short-term BP variability, 125 participants experienced the composite end point over a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 2.3-8.6 years). For long-term BP variability, 110 participants experienced the composite end point over a median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0-7.5 years). In adjusted analyses, long-term BP variability was significantly associated with the composite end point (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.51 per 5-mm Hg higher SD of office systolic BP), but short-term systolic BP variability was not (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.25 per 5-mm Hg higher SD of 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP). Neither estimate of BP variability improved risk discrimination or reclassification compared with a simple risk prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CKD, long-term but not short-term systolic BP variability is related to the risk of death and cardiovascular events. However, BP variability has a limited role for prediction in CKD.
Authors: Pantelis A Sarafidis; Luis M Ruilope; Charalampos Loutradis; Manuel Gorostidi; Alejandro de la Sierra; Juan J de la Cruz; Ernest Vinyoles; Juan A Divisón-Garrote; Julián Segura; José R Banegas Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Gopalakrishnan Venkat-Raman; Charles R V Tomson; Yongsheng Gao; Ronald Cornet; Benedicte Stengel; Carola Gronhagen-Riska; Chris Reid; Christian Jacquelinet; Elke Schaeffner; Els Boeschoten; Francesco Casino; Frederic Collart; Johan De Meester; Oscar Zurriaga; Reinhard Kramar; Kitty J Jager; Keith Simpson Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 5.992
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: L Parker Gregg; S Susan Hedayati; Hui Yang; Peter N Van Buren; Subhash Banerjee; Sankar D Navaneethan; Salim S Virani; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Carlos A Alvarez Journal: Hypertension Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Ikechi G Okpechi; Shezel Muneer; Mohammed M Tinwala; Deenaz Zaidi; Laura N Hamonic; Branko Braam; Kailash Jindal; Scott Klarenbach; Raj S Padwal; Soroush Shojai; Stephanie Thompson; Aminu K Bello Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Farrukh M Koraishy; Steven G Coca; Beth E Cohen; Jeffery F Scherrer; Frank Mann; Pei-Fen Kuan; Benjamin J Luft; Sean A P Clouston Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2021 Nov-Dec 01 Impact factor: 4.312