Manjula Kurella Tamura1, Sarah Gaussoin2, Nicholas M Pajewski2, Greg Zaharchuk3, Barry I Freedman4, Stephen R Rapp5, Alexander P Auchus6, William E Haley7, Suzanne Oparil8, Jessica Kendrick9, Christianne L Roumie10, Srinivasan Beddhu11, Alfred K Cheung11, Jeff D Williamson12, John A Detre13, Sudipto Dolui14, R Nick Bryan15, Ilya M Nasrallah14. 1. Geriatric Research and Education Clinical Center, Palo Alto VA Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA; Division of Nephrology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA. Electronic address: mktamura@stanford.edu. 2. Departments of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. 3. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Nephrology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. 5. Psychiatry & Behavioral Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS. 7. Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 8. Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO. 10. VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Geriatrics Research and Education Clinical Center and Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 11. Division of Nephrology & Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah and Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, UT. 12. Sticht Center for Healthy Aging and Alzheimer's Prevention, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. 13. Departments of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 14. Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 15. Department of Diagnostic Medicine Dell Medical School, University of Texas Austin Austin, TX.
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The safety of intensive blood pressure (BP) targets is controversial for persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We studied the effects of hypertension treatment on cerebral perfusion and structure in individuals with and without CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Neuroimaging substudy of a randomized trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A subset of participants in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) who underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging studies. Presence of baseline CKD was assessed by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to intensive (systolic BP <120 mm Hg) versus standard (systolic BP <140 mm Hg) BP lowering. OUTCOMES: The magnetic resonance imaging outcome measures were the 4-year change in global cerebral blood flow (CBF), white matter lesion (WML) volume, and total brain volume (TBV). RESULTS: A total of 716 randomized participants with a mean age of 68 years were enrolled; follow-up imaging occurred after a median 3.9 years. Among participants with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 234), the effects of intensive versus standard BP treatment on change in global CBF, WMLs, and TBV were 3.38 (95% CI, 0.32 to 6.44) mL/100 g/min, -0.06 (95% CI, -0.16 to 0.04) cm3 (inverse hyperbolic sine-transformed), and -3.8 (95% CI, -8.3 to 0.7) cm3, respectively. Among participants with UACR >30 mg/g (n = 151), the effects of intensive versus standard BP treatment on change in global CBF, WMLs, and TBV were 1.91 (95% CI, -3.01 to 6.82) mL/100 g/min, 0.003 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.13) cm3 (inverse hyperbolic sine-transformed), and -7.0 (95% CI, -13.3 to -0.3) cm3, respectively. The overall treatment effects on CBF and TBV were not modified by baseline eGFR or UACR; however, the effect on WMLs was attenuated in participants with albuminuria (P = 0.04 for interaction). LIMITATIONS: Measurement variability due to multisite design. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with hypertension who have primarily early kidney disease, intensive versus standard BP treatment did not appear to have a detrimental effect on brain perfusion or structure. The findings support the safety of intensive BP treatment targets on brain health in persons with early kidney disease. FUNDING: SPRINT was funded by the National Institutes of Health (including the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the National Institute on Aging; and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), and this substudy was funded by the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SPRINT was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT01206062. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The safety of intensive blood pressure (BP) targets is controversial for persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We studied the effects of hypertension treatment on cerebral perfusion and structure in individuals with and without CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Neuroimaging substudy of a randomized trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A subset of participants in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) who underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging studies. Presence of baseline CKD was assessed by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to intensive (systolic BP <120 mm Hg) versus standard (systolic BP <140 mm Hg) BP lowering. OUTCOMES: The magnetic resonance imaging outcome measures were the 4-year change in global cerebral blood flow (CBF), white matter lesion (WML) volume, and total brain volume (TBV). RESULTS: A total of 716 randomized participants with a mean age of 68 years were enrolled; follow-up imaging occurred after a median 3.9 years. Among participants with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 234), the effects of intensive versus standard BP treatment on change in global CBF, WMLs, and TBV were 3.38 (95% CI, 0.32 to 6.44) mL/100 g/min, -0.06 (95% CI, -0.16 to 0.04) cm3 (inverse hyperbolic sine-transformed), and -3.8 (95% CI, -8.3 to 0.7) cm3, respectively. Among participants with UACR >30 mg/g (n = 151), the effects of intensive versus standard BP treatment on change in global CBF, WMLs, and TBV were 1.91 (95% CI, -3.01 to 6.82) mL/100 g/min, 0.003 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.13) cm3 (inverse hyperbolic sine-transformed), and -7.0 (95% CI, -13.3 to -0.3) cm3, respectively. The overall treatment effects on CBF and TBV were not modified by baseline eGFR or UACR; however, the effect on WMLs was attenuated in participants with albuminuria (P = 0.04 for interaction). LIMITATIONS: Measurement variability due to multisite design. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with hypertension who have primarily early kidney disease, intensive versus standard BP treatment did not appear to have a detrimental effect on brain perfusion or structure. The findings support the safety of intensive BP treatment targets on brain health in persons with early kidney disease. FUNDING: SPRINT was funded by the National Institutes of Health (including the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the National Institute on Aging; and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), and this substudy was funded by the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SPRINT was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT01206062. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hypertension; albuminuria; blood pressure (BP); cerebral perfusion; chronic kidney disease (CKD); intensive BP control; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); neuroimaging; white matter injury; white matter lesions
Authors: Daniel E Weiner; Hocine Tighiouart; Andrew S Levey; Essam Elsayed; John L Griffith; Deeb N Salem; Mark J Sarnak Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-02-14 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Manjula Kurella Tamura; Nicholas M Pajewski; R Nick Bryan; Daniel E Weiner; Matthew Diamond; Peter Van Buren; Addison Taylor; Srinivasan Beddhu; Clive Rosendorff; Hesamoddin Jahanian; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Walter T Ambrosius; Kaycee M Sink; Capri G Foy; Dan R Berlowitz; Alfred K Cheung; William C Cushman; Lawrence J Fine; David C Goff; Karen C Johnson; Anthony A Killeen; Cora E Lewis; Suzanne Oparil; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Joni K Snyder; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright; Paul K Whelton Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: M I Aguilar; E S O'Meara; S Seliger; W T Longstreth; R G Hart; P E Pergola; M G Shlipak; R Katz; M J Sarnak; D E Rifkin Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Harmke A Polinder-Bos; David Vállez García; Johanna Kuipers; Jan Willem J Elting; Marcel J H Aries; Wim P Krijnen; Henk Groen; Antoon T M Willemsen; Peter J van Laar; Fijanne Strijkert; Gert Luurtsema; Riemer H J A Slart; Ralf Westerhuis; Ron T Gansevoort; Carlo A J M Gaillard; Casper F M Franssen Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Daniel E Weiner; Keith Bartolomei; Tammy Scott; Lori Lyn Price; John L Griffith; Irwin Rosenberg; Andrew S Levey; Marshal F Folstein; Mark J Sarnak Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2008-12-12 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Sanaz Sedaghat; Meike W Vernooij; Elizabeth Loehrer; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Albert Hofman; Aad van der Lugt; Oscar H Franco; Abbas Dehghan; M Arfan Ikram Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Hua-Shan Liu; Abbas F Jawad; Nina Laney; Erum A Hartung; Susan L Furth; John A Detre Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 3.447
Authors: M Arfan Ikram; Meike W Vernooij; Albert Hofman; Wiro J Niessen; Aad van der Lugt; Monique M B Breteler Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914