Association of peridialytic, intradialytic, scheduled interdialytic and ambulatory BP recordings with cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory-BP-monitoring (ABPM) is recommended for hypertension diagnosis and management in hemodialysis patients due to its strong association with outcomes. Intradialytic and scheduled interdialytic BP recordings show agreement with ambulatory BP. This study assesses in parallel the association of pre-dialysis, intradialytic, scheduled interdialytic and ambulatory BP recordings with cardiovascular events. METHODS: We prospectively followed 242 hemodialysis patients with valid 48-h ABPMs for a median of 45.7 months to examine the association of pre-dialysis, intradialytic, intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis readings, scheduled interdialytic BP, and 44-h ambulatory BP with outcomes. The primary end-point was a composite one, composed of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, hospitalization for heart failure, coronary revascularization procedure or peripheral revascularization procedure. RESULTS: Cumulative freedom from the primary end-point was significantly lower with increasing 44-h SBP (group 1, < 120 mmHg, 64.2%; group 2, ≥ 120 to < 130 mmHg 60.4%, group 3, ≥ 130 to < 140 mmHg 45.3%; group 4, ≥ 140 mmHg 45.5%; logrank-p = 0.016). Similar were the results for intradialytic (logrank-p = 0.039), intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis (logrank-p = 0.044), and scheduled interdialytic SBP (logrank-p = 0.030), but not for pre-dialysis SBP (logrank-p = 0.570). Considering group 1 as the reference group, the hazard ratios of the primary end-point showed a gradual increase with higher BP levels with all BP metrics, except pre-dialysis SBP. This pattern was confirmed in adjusted analyses. An inverse association of DBP levels with outcomes was shown with all BP metrics, which was no longer evident in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Averaged intradialytic and scheduled home BP measurements (but not pre-dialysis readings) display similar prognostic associations with 44-h ambulatory BP in hemodialysis patients and represent valid metrics for hypertension management in these individuals.

The Effects of Nebivolol and Irbesartan on Ambulatory Aortic Blood Pressure and Arterial Stiffness in Hemodialysis Patients with Intradialytic Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypertension occurs in 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but the responsible mechanisms remain unknown. This study examined the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on ambulatory central blood pressure (BP), arterial stiffness, and wave-reflection parameters in patients with intradialytic hypertension. METHODS: This is a prespecified analysis of a single-blind, randomized, cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients with intradialytic hypertension. Patients were randomized to nebivolol 5 mg followed byirbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. In a non-randomized manner, the first half of the patients (n = 19) received a single drug dose 1 h prior to dialysis session and the remaining received the drugs for a whole week before the evaluation. Ambulatory central BP, arterial stiffness, and wave-reflection parameters were estimated with Mobil-O-Graph NG device, during a midweek dialysis day. RESULTS: Intake of a single dose of nebivolol or irbesartan resulted in lower postdialysis central systolic BP (c-SBP) (baseline: 140.9 ± 15.4; nebivolol: 130.3 ± 19.5, p = 0.009; irbesartan: 127.3 ± 24.4 mm Hg, p = 0.007). Single-dose nebivolol also produced marginally lower 24-h c-SBP (p = 0.064) and lower 24-h central diastolic BP (c-DBP) (p = 0.029). Weekly administration of both drugs reduced postdialysis c-SBP (baseline: 144.1 ± 15.3; nebivolol: 131.8 ± 14.1, p = 0.014; irbesartan: 126.4 ± 17.8, p = 0.001) and 24-h c-SBP and c-DBP (baseline: 135.5 ± 10.3/91.9 ± 9.2; nebivolol: 126.4 ± 8.4/86.6 ± 7.2, p < 0.001/p = 0.002; irbesartan: 128.7 ± 11.6/87.0 ± 9.4, p = 0.061/p = 0.051 mm Hg). Single-dose intake of both drugs did not affect heart rate-adjusted augmentation index [AIx(75)], but decreased postdialysis pulse wave velocity (PWV). Importantly, weekly administration of both drugs reduced 24-h PWV (baseline: 10.0 ± 2.5; nebivolol: 9.7 ± 2.5, p = 0.012; irbesartan: 9.7 ± 2.7, p = 0.041). In between drug-group comparisons, no significant differences were noted. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized evaluation on the effects of pharmacological interventions on central BP and PWV in patients with intradialytic hypertension. Weekly administration of both nebivolol and irbesartan reduced 24-h central BP and PWV, but not AIx(75).

Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation Modify the Associations of Nocturnal Blood Pressure Dipping Pattern With Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients.

Heart failure (HF), hypertension, and abnormal nocturnal blood pressure dipping are highly prevalent in hemodialysis patients. Atrial fibrillation (AF) and HF might be important mediators for the association of abnormal dipping patterns with worse prognosis. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate the association of dipping with mortality in hemodialysis patients and to assess the influence of AF and HF. In total, 525 hemodialysis patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality served as end points. Patients were categorized according to their systolic dipping pattern (dipper, nondipper, and reverse dipper). Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the association between dipping pattern and study end points with dipping as reference. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients with and without AF or HF. In total, 185 patients with AF or HF and 340 patients without AF or HF were included. During a median follow-up of 37.8 months, 177 patients died; 81 from cardiovascular causes. Nondipping and reverse dipping were significantly associated with all-cause mortality in the whole cohort (nondipper: hazard ratio, 1.95 [1.22-3.14]; P=0.006; reverse dipper: hazard ratio, 2.31 [1.42-3.76]; P<0.001) and in patients without AF or HF (nondipper: hazard ratio, 2.78 [1.16-6.66]; P=0.02; reverse dipper: hazard ratio, 4.48 [1.87-10.71]; P<0.001) but not in patients with AF or HF. For cardiovascular mortality, associations were again significant in patients without AF or HF and in the whole cohort. The observed associations remained significant after adjustment for possible confounders. This study provides well-powered evidence for the association between abnormal dipping patterns and mortality in hemodialysis patients and suggests that HF or AF modifies this association.

Treatment-resistant hypertension in the hemodialysis population: a 44-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring-based study.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled hypertension notwithstanding the use of at least three drugs or hypertension controlled with at least four drugs, the widely accepted definition of treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH), is considered as a common problem in the hemodialysis population. However, to date there is no estimate of the prevalence of this condition in hemodialysis patients. METHOD: We estimated the prevalence of TRH by 44-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in 506 hemodialysis patients in 10 renal units in Europe included in the registry of the European Renal and Cardiovascular Medicine (EURECAm,), a working group of the European Association, European Dialysis and Transplantation Association (ERA EDTA). In a sub-group of 114 patients, we tested the relationship between fluid overload (Body Composition monitor) and TRH. RESULTS: The prevalence of hypertension with 44-h ABPM criteria was estimated at 85.6% (434 out of 506 patients). Of these, 296 (58%) patients were classified as uncontrolled hypertensive patients by 44-h ABPM criteria (≥130/80 mmHg). Two hundred and thirteen patients had uncontrolled hypertension while on treatment with less than three drugs and 210 patients were normotensive while on drug therapy (n = 138) or off drug treatment (n = 72). The prevalence of TRH was 24% (93 among 386 treated hypertensive patients). The prevalence of predialysis fluid overload was 33% among TRH patients, 34% in uncontrolled hypertensive patients and 26% in normotensive patients. The vast majority (67%) of hemodialysis patients with TRH had no fluid overload. CONCLUSION: TRH occurs in about one in four treated hypertensive patients on hemodialysis. Fluid overload per se only in part explains TRH and the 67% of these patients show no fluid overload.

Lung Ultrasound-Guided Dry Weight Assessment and Echocardiographic Measures in Hypertensive Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and dysfunction are associated with adverse outcomes in hemodialysis patients. Hypertension and hypervolemia play important roles in these cardiac abnormalities. We report on the prespecified secondary outcome, echocardiographic indexes of LV function, from a previously reported study of the effect of lung ultrasound (US)-guided dry weight reduction on systolic blood pressure. STUDY DESIGN: Single-blind randomized trial. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: 71 clinically euvolemic hypertensive hemodialysis patients in Greece and Slovenia. INTERVENTION: The active intervention group's (n=35) volume removal was guided by the total number of lung US B-lines observed every week before a midweek dialysis session. The usual-care group (n=36) was treated using standard-of-care processes that did not include acquisition of US data. OUTCOMES: 2-dimensional and tissue Doppler echocardiographic indexes at baseline and study end (8 weeks) that evaluated left and right heart chamber sizes, as well as systolic and diastolic function. RESULTS: Overall, 19 (54%) patients in the active intervention and 5 (14%) in the usual-care group had ultrafiltration intensification (P<0.001) during follow-up; changes in US B-lines (-5.3±12.5 vs+2.2±7.6; P<0.001) and dry weight (-0.71±1.39 vs+0.51±0.98kg; P<0.001) significantly differed between the active and usual-care groups. Inferior vena cava diameter decreased in the active compared with the usual-care group (-0.43±4.00 vs 0.71±4.82cm; P=0.03) at study end. Left (LA) and right (RA) atrial dimensions decreased more in the active group (LA surface, -1.09±4.61 vs 0.93±3.06cm2; P=0.03; RA surface -1.56±6.17 vs 0.47±2.31; P=0.02). LA volume index nominally decreased more in the active group (-2.43±13.14 vs 2.95±9.42mL/m2), though this was of borderline statistical significance (P=0.05). Reductions in LV end-diastolic diameter and volume were marginally greater in the active group. The change in LV filling pressures was significantly different in the active compared with the usual-care group (early transmitral diastolic velocities ratio [E/e'], -0.38±3.14 vs 1.36±3.54; P=0.03; E wave deceleration time, 35.43±85.25 vs-18.44±50.69; P=0.002]. Systolic function indexes were unchanged in both groups. In multivariable analysis, US B-line reduction was associated with a reduction in the E/e' LV ratio (OR, 4.542; 95% CI, 1.266-16.292; P=0.02). LIMITATIONS: Exploratory study; small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: A US-guided strategy for dry weight reduction is associated with decreased cardiac chamber dimensions and LV filling pressure, but no difference in systolic performance compared with usual care in hypertensive hemodialysis patients. FUNDING: European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT03058874.

Weak within-individual association of blood pressure and pulse wave velocity in hemodialysis is related to adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Hemodialysis patients have premature arterial stiffness, and the relationship between pulse wave velocity (PWV) and blood pressure (BP) may be different than in other hypertensives. Previous studies in such patients showed that when BP decrease is accompanied by PWV decrease the survival is improved. This study examines the prognostic role of the mean BP (MBP)-PWV association for cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in hemodialysis. METHODS: A total of 242 hemodialysis patients underwent 48-h ambulatory BP monitoring with Mobil-O-Graph-NG and were followed for 33.17 ±â€Š19.68 months. The within-individual MBP-PWV association (MBP, dependent and PWV independent variable) was evaluated using the ß-coefficient value from simple linear regression analysis for each patient. The primary end-point was first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke. Secondary end-points were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and a combination of cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Higher quartiles of ß-coefficients (indicating strong within-individual association of MBP with PWV) were related to greater cumulative freedom from the primary end-point (50.8, 60.0, 70.0 and 80.3% for quartiles 1-4, respectively; log-rank P = 0.001), better overall survival (60.7, 61.7, 73.3, 86.9%; log-rank P = 0.002) and better cardiovascular survival (78.7, 75.0, 81.7, 91.8% for quartiles 1-4; log-rank P = 0.044). The future risks of the primary end-point, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and the combined outcome were progressively increasing with lower quartiles of ß-coefficients, indicating patients with weak MBP-PWV association (hazard ratios for all-cause mortality 3.395; 95% confidence interval: 1.524-7.563, P = 0.003 for quartile 1 vs. quartile 4). CONCLUSION: Weaker within-individual MBP-PWV association, based on ABPM recordings, is associated with higher risk of death and cardiovascular events in hemodialysis. These findings support that arterial stiffness insensitive to BP changes is the underlying factor for adverse outcomes in these individuals.

Nebivolol reduces short-term blood pressure variability more potently than irbesartan in patients with intradialytic hypertension.

Increased blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) is associated with high cardiovascular risk in hemodialysis. Studies on the effects of antihypertensive drugs on BPV in hemodialysis are scarce. This study examines the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on short-term BPV in patients with intradialytic hypertension. This randomized-cross-over study included 38 patients (age: 60.4 ± 11.1 years, male: 65.8%) with intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic-SBP increase ≥ 10 mmHg at ≥4 over 6 consecutive sessions). After the baseline evaluation, participants were randomized to nebivolol 5 mg and subsequently irbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa, with a two-week wash-out period before initiation of the second drug. Patients underwent three respective 24 h-ABPM sessions starting before a midweek-session. We calculated the standard deviation (SD), weighted SD (wSD), coefficient of variation (CV), and average real variability (ARV) of BP with validated formulas. The post-hemodialysis and 24 h-SBP and DBP levels were significantly lower after treatment with both drugs. The systolic-BPV indices were marginally lower after nebivolol but not after irbesartan compared to baseline (SD: baseline 15.70 ± 4.69; nebivolol 14.45 ± 3.37, p = 0.090; irbesartan 15.39 ± 3.85, p = 0.706; wSD: 14.62 ± 4.36 vs 13.40 ± 3.07, p = 0.053 vs 14.36 ± 3.47, p = 0.805, respectively). The diastolic-BPV indices decreased with nebivolol and increased with irbesartan, resulting in significant differences between the two drugs (SD: baseline 10.56 ± 2.50; nebivolol 9.75 ± 2.12; irbesartan 10.84 ± 1.98, between-drug p = 0.014; wSD: baseline 9.86 ± 2.12; nebivolol 9.34 ± 2.01; irbesartan 10.25 ± 2.01, between-drug p = 0.029). The diastolic-BPV during intradialytic and day-time periods was marginally lower with nebivolol than with irbesartan. During nighttime, the BPV indices were unchanged with either drug. The short-term BPV was reduced after nebivolol but not after irbesartan treatment in patients with intradialytic hypertension. These findings suggest that sympathetic-overdrive may be a major factor that affects BPV in intradialytic hypertension patients.

The association of interdialytic blood pressure variability with cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in haemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Long-term pre-dialysis blood pressure variability (BPV) in haemodialysis patients is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. The association of the main haemodynamic culprit in dialysis, that is, short-term BPV, with outcomes has not been investigated. We examine the prognostic role of short-term BPV for mortality and cardiovascular events in this population. METHODS: A total of 227 haemodialysis patients underwent 44-h ambulatory monitoring during a standard interval and were followed-up for 30.17 ± 17.70 months. We calculated SD, weighted SD (wSD), coefficient of variation (CV) and average real variability (ARV) of BP with validated formulas. The primary endpoint was first occurrence of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Secondary endpoints were: (i) all-cause mortality, (ii) cardiovascular mortality and (iii) a combination of cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Cumulative freedom from the primary endpoint was similar for quartiles of pre-dialysis and 44-h systolic BP (SBP), but was progressively longer for increasing quartiles of 44-h SBP-SD (P = 0.014), wSD (P = 0.007), CV (P = 0.031) and ARV (83.9, 71.9, 70.2 and 43.9% for quartiles 1-4; P < 0.001). Higher quartiles of 44-h SBP-ARV were associated with higher risk of all studied outcomes. Among diastolic BPV indices, 44-h diastolic BP (DBP)-CV and 44-h DBP-ARV were associated with increased risk for the composite cardiovascular outcome. In Cox regression analysis, SBP-BPV was related to the primary endpoint, independently of SBP levels and interdialytic weight gain [ARV: hazard ratio (HR) 1.115, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.048-1.185]. This association become insignificant after adjustment for pulse wave velocity (PWV; HR 1.061, 95% CI 0.989-1.137), and further attenuated after additional adjustment for age, dialysis vintage, gender, comorbidities and prevalent cardiovascular disease (HR 1.031, 95% CI 0.946-1.122). CONCLUSIONS: Increased BPV during the interdialytic interval is associated with higher risk of death and cardiovascular events, whereas ambulatory BP levels are not. This association was not independent after adjustment for PWV, other risk factors and prevalent cardiovascular disease. Short-term BPV could be a mediator promoting the adverse cardiovascular profile of haemodialysis patients.

The effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on postdialysis and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized cross-over study.

OBJECTIVES: Intradialytic hypertension is estimated at 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Studies on therapeutic interventions for this entity are extremely few. We aimed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on peridialytic, intradialytic, and ambulatory BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. METHODS: This is a pilot randomized-cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients (age: 60.4 ±â€Š11.1 years, men: 65.8%) with intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic SBP rise ≥10 mmHg at ≥4 over six consecutive sessions]. After baseline evaluation, patients were randomly assigned to nebivolol 5 mg and subsequently irbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. Nineteen patients received a single drug-dose 1 h before hemodialysis and 19 received the drug for a week before evaluation. A 2-week wash-out period took place before the initiation of the second drug. Patients had three respective 24-h ambulatory BP measurements starting before a midweek session. RESULTS: In total, 20 (52.6%) patients received nebivolol first and 18 (47.4%) received irbesartan. Patients receiving a single dose of either drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 160.2 ±â€Š17.8/93.2 ±â€Š13.6 mmHg; nebivolol: 148.0 ±â€Š20.8/84.5 ±â€Š13.1 mmHg, P = 0.013/P = 0.027; irbesartan 142.9 ±â€Š29.9/87.2 ±â€Š18.1 mmHg, P = 0.003/P = 0.104 for SBP and DBP, respectively). The 24-h BP presented a trend towards reduction, but was significant only for 24-h DBP in the nebivolol arm. Patients on weekly administration of either drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 162.5 ±â€Š16.8/95.4 ±â€Š12.7 mmHg; nebivolol: 146.7 ±â€Š16.3/91.8 ±â€Š12.2 mmHg, P = 0.001/P = 0.235; irbesartan: 146.0 ±â€Š23.9/85.8 ±â€Š12.9 mmHg, P = 0.004/ P = 0.007, respectively), lower intradialytic BP and lower 24-h BP (baseline: 148.3 ±â€Š12.6/90.2 ±â€Š9.0 mmHg; nebivolol: 139.2 ±â€Š10.6/85.0 ±â€Š7.7 mmHg, P < 0.001/P = 0.001; irbesartan: 142.4 ±â€Š16.4/85.1 ±â€Š9.9 mmHg, P = 0.156/P = 0.030). No significant differences were observed in comparisons between the two drugs, with the exception of heart rate, being lower with nebivolol. CONCLUSION: Both nebivolol and irbesartan reduced postdialysis and 24-h BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. Weekly administration had greater effect and nebivolol was numerically slightly more potent than irbesartan.

Prevalence and control of hypertension by 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in haemodialysis patients: a study by the European Cardiovascular and Renal Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the ERA-EDTA.

BACKGROUND: Population-specific consensus documents recommend that the diagnosis of hypertension in haemodialysis patients be based on 48-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring. However, until now there is just one study in the USA on the prevalence of hypertension in haemodialysis patients by 44-h recordings. Since there is a knowledge gap on the problem in European countries, we reassessed the problem in the European Cardiovascular and Renal Medicine working group Registry of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association. METHODS: A total of 396 haemodialysis patients underwent 48-h ABP monitoring during a regular haemodialysis session and the subsequent interdialytic interval. Hypertension was defined as (i) pre-haemodialysis blood pressure (BP) ≥140/90 mmHg or use of antihypertensive agents and (ii) ABP ≥130/80 mmHg or use of antihypertensive agents. RESULTS: The prevalence of hypertension by 48-h ABP monitoring was very high (84.3%) and close to that by pre-haemodialysis BP (89.4%) but the agreement of the two techniques was not of the same magnitude (κ statistics = 0.648; P <0.001). In all, 290 participants were receiving antihypertensive treatment. In all, 9.1% of haemodialysis patients were categorized as normotensives, 12.6% had controlled hypertension confirmed by the two BP techniques, while 46.0% had uncontrolled hypertension with both techniques. The prevalence of white coat hypertension was 18.2% and that of masked hypertension 14.1%. Of note, hypertension was confined only to night-time in 22.2% of patients while just 1% of patients had only daytime hypertension. Pre-dialysis BP ≥140/90 mmHg had 76% sensitivity and 54% specificity for the diagnosis of BP ≥130/80 mmHg by 48-h ABP monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of hypertension in haemodialysis patients assessed by 48-h ABP monitoring is very high. Pre-haemodialysis BP poorly reflects the 48 h-ABP burden. About a third of the haemodialysis population has white coat or masked hypertension. These findings add weight to consensus documents supporting the use of ABP monitoring for proper hypertension diagnosis and treatment in this population.

A Comparative Study of Short-Term Blood Pressure Variability in Hemodialysis Patients with and without Intradialytic Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Short-term blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk in hemodialysis. Patients with intradialytic hypertension have high risk of adverse outcomes. Whether BPV is increased in these patients is not clear. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term BPV in patients with and without intradialytic hypertension. METHODS: Forty-one patients with and 82 patients without intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic SBP rise ≥10 mm Hg to > 150 mm Hg) matched in a 1: 2 ratio for age, sex, and hemodialysis vintage were included. All subjects underwent 48-h ambulatory BP monitoring during a regular hemodialysis and the subsequent interdialytic interval. Brachial and aortic BPV were calculated with validated formulas and compared between the 2 groups during the 48-h and the 44-h periods and during the 2 daytime and nighttime periods respectively. RESULTS: During 48-h or 44-h periods and daytime or nighttime, brachial SBP/DBP and aortic SBP/DBP were significantly higher in cases than in controls. All brachial SBP/DBP BPV indexes [SD, weighted SD (wSD), coefficient-of-variation (CV) and average-real-variability (ARV)] were not significantly different between groups during the 48- or 44-h periods (48-h: SBP-ARV 11.59 ± 3.05 vs. 11.70 ± 2.68, p = 0.844, DBP-ARV: 8.60 ± 1.90 vs. 8.90 ± 1.63, p = 0.357). Analysis stratified by day or night between days 1 and 2 revealed, in general, similar results. No significant differences in dipping pattern were observed between groups. Analysis of aortic BPV had similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: BPV is similar between those with and without intradialytic hypertension. However, those with intradialytic hypertension have a sustained increase in systolic and diastolic BP during the entire interdialytic interval.

Blood pressure variability is increasing from the first to the second day of the interdialytic interval in hemodialysis patients.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with end-stage renal-disease under hemodialysis have increased cardiovascular risk and experience severe blood pressure (BP) fluctuations during the dialysis session and the subsequent interdialytic period. BP variability (BPV) may be an additional risk factor for cardiovascular events and preliminary data suggest increased BPV with advancing stages of chronic kidney disease. This is the first study to examine BPV during the whole intradialytic and interdialytic period in hemodialysis patients with ambulatory BP monitoring. METHODS: A total of 160 patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis had 48-h ambulatory BP monitoring with the Mobil-O-Graph device during a regular dialysis session and the subsequent interdialytic interval. Brachial and aortic BPV were calculated with validated formulas and were compared between Days 1 and 2 of the interdialytic period (44-h), Days 1 and 2 of the total 48-h interval (including the dialysis session), and between the two respective daytime periods and night-time periods. RESULTS: All brachial SBPV indices [SD: 14.75 ±â€Š4.38 vs. 15.91 ±â€Š4.41, P = 0.001; weighted SD: 13.80 ±â€Š4.00 vs. 14.89 ±â€Š3.90, P < 0.001; coefficient of variation (CV): 11.34 ±â€Š2.91 vs. 11.93 ±â€Š2.94, P = 0.011; average real variability (ARV): 11.38 ±â€Š3.44 vs. 12.32 ±â€Š3.65, P < 0.001)] were increasing from Days 1 to 2 of the 44-h interdialytic period. Similarly, all indexes of DBPV were significantly increased in Day 2, except for CV. Aortic SBPV and DBPV indices displayed a similar pattern. Furthermore, all studied brachial SBPV and DBPV indexes were also lower during daytimes 1 than 2 (systolic ARV 11.56 ±â€Š3.98 vs. 12.44 ±â€Š4.03, P = 0.002); systolic ARV was lower in night-time 1 compared with night-time 2 (11.20 ±â€Š5.09 vs. 12.18 ±â€Š4.66, P = 0.045). In multivariate regression analysis prehemodialysis SBP, age and diabetes were independently associated with increased SBP ARV. CONCLUSION: BPV is increased in interdialytic Day 2 compared with Day 1 in hemodialysis patients; this could be another mechanism involved in the complex cardiovascular pathophysiology and increased cardiovascular mortality of these individuals.

Diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis complex in a patient referred for uncontrolled hypertension and renal dysfunction: a case highlighting the importance of proper diagnostic work-up of hypertensive patients.

: We report a case of a 39-year-old woman with resistant hypertension and renal dysfunction. The patient was hospitalized 3 months earlier for dyspnea at the Department of Cardiology, where she was diagnosed with heart failure (left ventricle injection fraction: 25-30%), pulmonary hypertension, chronic kidney disease (serum creatinine: 1.58 mg/dl), and resistant hypertension and discharged with optimal heart failure treatment. At presentation to our clinic, apart from uncontrolled hypertension for more than 10 years and history of pre-eclampsia and fetal loss, the patient had obesity (BMI: 38 kg/m) and facial fibromas. The first diagnostic steps proposed by the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) Guidelines to identify other target-organ damage and causes of secondary hypertension revealed typical proteinuric hypertensive nephropathy, hypertensive retinopathy, and sleep-apnea syndrome. Furthermore, a renal ultrasound showed multiple bilateral renal angiomyolipomas, confirmed by an MRI scan. Following consultation with the Neurology and Dermatology Departments, the diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis complex, based on presence of six major criteria, was confirmed. During the following 10 months, careful adjustments in the patient's antihypertensive treatment, reinforcement of lifestyle interventions, and improved compliance enabled her to reduce her body weight, control blood pressure, improve her heart (left ventricle injection fraction: >40%), and renal injury (creatinine urine clearance: 125 ml/min, urine protein: 178 mg/24 day) and serum triglycerides (153 mg/dl). These improvements enabled the start of everolimus, required for a slight increase in angiomyolipomas' size (3.46 cm) in the repeated examinations.

Evaluation of a novel brachial cuff-based oscillometric method for estimating central systolic pressure in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Elevated wave reflections and arterial stiffness, as well as ambulatory blood pressure (BP) are independent predictors of cardiovascular risk in end-stage-renal-disease. This study is the first to evaluate in hemodialysis patients the validity of a new ambulatory oscillometric device (Mobil-O-Graph, IEM, Germany), which estimates aortic BP, augmentation index (AIx) and pulse wave velocity (PWV). METHODS: Aortic SBP (aSBP), heart rate-adjusted AIx (AIx(75)) and PWV measured with Mobil-O-Graph were compared with the values from the most widely used tonometric device (Sphygmocor, ArtCor, Australia) in 73 hemodialysis patients. Measurements were made in a randomized order after 10 min of rest in the supine position at least 30 min before a dialysis session. Brachial BP (mercury sphygmomanometer) was used for the calibration of Sphygmocor's waveform. RESULTS: Sphygmocor-derived aSBP and AIx(75) did not differ from the relevant Mobil-O-Graph measurements (aSBP: 136.3 ± 19.6 vs. 133.5 ± 19.3 mm Hg, p = 0.068; AIx(75): 28.4 ± 9.3 vs. 30.0 ± 11.8%, p = 0.229). The small difference in aSBP is perhaps explained by a relevant difference in brachial SBP used for calibration (146.9 ± 20.4 vs. 145.2 ± 19.9 mm Hg, p = 0.341). Sphygmocor PWV was higher than Mobil-O-Graph PWV (10.3 ± 3.4 vs. 9.5 ± 2.1 m/s, p < 0.01). All 3 parameters estimated by Mobil-O-Graph showed highly significant (p < 0.001) correlations with the relevant measurements of Sphygmocor (aSBP, r = 0.770; AIx(75), r = 0.400; PWV, r = 0.739). The Bland-Altman Plots for aSBP and AIx(75) showed acceptable agreement between the two devices and no evidence of systemic bias for PWV. CONCLUSION: As in other populations, acceptable agreement between Mobil-O-Graph and Sphygmocor was evident for aSBP and AIx(75) in hemodialysis patients; PWV was slightly underestimated by Mobil-O-Graph.