Low dialysate sodium and 48-h ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Intradialytic-hypertension (IDH) is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality. Patients with IDH exhibit higher 48-h blood pressure (BP) levels than patients without this condition. Volume and sodium excess are considered a major factor contributing in the development of this phenomenon. This study evaluated the effect of low (137mEq/L) compared to standard (140mEq/L) dialysate sodium concentration on 48-h BP in patients with IDH. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, crossover study, 29 patients with IDH underwent 4 hemodialysis sessions with low (137mEq/L) followed by 4 sessions with standard (140mEq/L) dialysate sodium or vice-versa. Mean 48-h BP, pre-/post-dialysis and intradialytic BP, pre-dialysis weight, interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and lung ultrasound B-lines were assessed. RESULTS: Mean 48-h SBP/DBP were significantly lower with low compared to standard dialysate sodium concentration (137.6±17.0/81.4±13.7mmHg with low vs 142.9±14.5/84.0±13.9mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, p=0.005/p=0.007 respectively); SBP/DBP levels were also significantly lower during the 44-h and different 24-h periods. Low dialysate sodium significantly reduced post-dialysis (SBP/DBP: 150.3±22.3/91.2±15.1mmHg with low vs 166.6±17.3/94.5±14.9mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, p<0.001/p=0.134 respectively) and intradialytic (141.4±18.0/85.0±13.4mmHg with low vs 147.5±13.6/88.1±12.5mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, p=0.034/p=0.013, respectively) BP compared with standard dialysate sodium. Pre-dialysis weight, IDWG and pre-dialysis B-lines were also significantly decreased with low dialysate sodium. CONCLUSIONS: Low dialysate sodium concentration significantly reduced 48-h ambulatory BP compared with standard dialysate sodium in patients with IDH. These findings support low dialysate sodium as a major non-pharmacologic approach for BP management in patients with IDH.Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT05430438.

The association of home blood pressure with all-cause mortality in hemodialysis patients: A prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Prior observational studies conducted in the hemodialysis population have suggested a reverse association between dialysis-unit blood pressure (BP) and mortality. The present study aimed to investigate the prognostic association of home versus dialysis-unit BP with all-cause mortality in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: At baseline, 146 patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis underwent assessment of their BP with the following methods: (i) 2-week averaged routine predialysis and postdialysis BP measurements; (ii) home BP monitoring for 1 week that included duplicate morning and evening BP measurements with the use of validated devices. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 38 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 22-54), 44 patients (31.1%) died. In Kaplan-Meier curves, predialysis and postdialysis systolic BP (SBP) was not associated with all-cause mortality, while home SBP appeared to be of prognostic significance (log rank p = 0.029). After stratifying patients into quartiles, all-cause mortality was lowest when home SBP was ranging from 128.1 to 136.8 mmHg (quartile 2). In univariate Cox regression analysis, using quartile 2 as a referent category, the risk of all-cause mortality was 3.32-fold higher in quartile 1, 1.53-fold higher in quartile 3 and 3.25-fold higher in quartile 4. The risk-association remained unchanged after adjustment for several confounding factors (adjusted hazard ratio: 4.79, 1.79, 3.63 for quartiles 1, 3, and 4 of home systolic BP, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that among hemodialysis patients, 1-week averaged home SBP is independently associated with all-cause mortality. In sharp contrast, SBP recorded either before or after dialysis over 2 weeks is not prognostically informative.

Cardiorespiratory fitness assessed with cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: JIA is the most common type of arthritis in children and adolescents, causing joint damage, chronic pain and disability. Deconditioning is also prevalent in patients with JIA due to both inactivity and the disease progression, resulting in reduced cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). We aimed to evaluate CRF of patients with JIA compared with healthy controls. METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to examine differences in determinants of CRF between patients with JIA vs healthy controls. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak). Literature search involved PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases, manual search of article references and grey literature. Quality assessment was undertaken with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From 480 literature records initially retrieved, eight studies (538 participants) were included in final meta-analysis. VO2peak was significantly lower in patients with JIA compared with controls [weighted mean difference (WMD): -5.95 ml/kg/min (95% CI -9.26, -2.65)]. Exercise duration and VO2peak (% predicted) were found to be significantly impaired in patients with JIA compared with controls [standardized mean difference: -0.67 (95% CI -1.04, -0.29) and WMD: -11.31% (95% CI -20.09, -2.53), respectively], while no significant differences were found in maximum heart rate. CONCLUSION: VO2peak and other CPET variables were lower in patients with JIA compared with controls, indicating reduced CRF in the former. Overall, exercise programs for patients with JIA should be promoted as part of their treatment to improve physical fitness and reduce muscle atrophy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022380833.

Association of Intradialytic Hypertension with Future Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients: Effects of Ambulatory Blood Pressure.

INTRODUCTION: Intradialytic hypertension (IDHTN) is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Patients with IDHTN have higher 44-h blood pressure (BP) than patients without this condition. Whether the excess risk in these patients is due to the BP rise during dialysis per se or on elevated 44-h BP or other comorbid conditions is uncertain. This study evaluated the association of IDHTN with cardiovascular events and mortality and the influence of ambulatory BP and other cardiovascular risk factors on these associations. METHODS: 242 hemodialysis patients with valid 48-h ABPM (Mobil-O-Graph-NG) were followed for a median of 45.7 months. IDHTN was defined as: systolic BP (SBP) rise ≥10 mm Hg from pre- to post-dialysis and post-dialysis SBP ≥150 mm Hg. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; the secondary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, heart failure hospitalization, coronary or peripheral revascularization. RESULTS: Cumulative freedom from both the primary and secondary endpoint was significantly lower for IDHTN patients (logrank-p = 0.048 and 0.022, respectively), corresponding to higher risks for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.566; 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.001, 2.450]) and the composite cardiovascular outcome (HR = 1.675; 95% CI [1.071, 2.620]) in these individuals. However, the observed associations lost statistical significance after adjustment for 44-h SBP (HR = 1.529; 95% CI [0.952, 2.457] and HR = 1.388; 95% CI [0.866, 2.225], respectively). In the final model after additional adjustment for 44-h SBP, interdialytic weight gain, age, history of coronary artery disease, heart failure, diabetes, and 44-h pulse wave velocity, the association of IDHTN with the outcomes was also not significant and the respective HRs were 1.377 (95% CI [0.836, 2.268]) and 1.451 (95% CI [0.891, 2.364]). CONCLUSIONS: IDHTN patients had higher risk for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes but this risk is at least partly confounded by the elevated BP levels during the interdialytic period.

Peridialytic and intradialytic blood pressure metrics are not valid estimates of 44-h ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension.

PURPOSE: In contrast to peridialytic blood pressure (BP), intradialytic and home BP measurements are accurate metrics of ambulatory BP load in hemodialysis patients. This study assessed the agreement of peridialytic, intradialytic, and scheduled interdialytic recordings with 44-h BP in a distinct hemodialysis population, patients with intradialytic hypertension (IDH). METHODS: This study included 45 IDH patients with valid 48-h ABPM and 197 without IDH. With 44-h BP used as reference method, we tested the accuracy of the following BP metrics: Pre- and post-dialysis, mean and median intradialytic, mean intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis, and scheduled interdialytic BP (out-of-dialysis day: mean of 8:00am/8:00 pm readings). RESULTS: In IDH patients, peridialytic and intradialytic BP metrics showed at best moderate correlations, while averaged interdialytic SBP/DBP exhibited strong correlation (r = 0.882/r = 0.855) with 44-h SBP/DBP. Bland-Altman plots showed large between-method-difference for peri- and intradialytic-BP, but only + 0.7 mmHg between-method difference and good 95% limits of agreement for averaged interdialytic SBP. The sensitivity/specificity and κ-statistic for diagnosing 44-h SBP ≥ 130 mmHg were low for pre-dialysis (72.5/40.0%, κ-statistic = 0.074) and post-dialysis (90.0/0.0%, κ-statistic = - 0.110), mean intradialytic (85.0/40.0%, κ-statistic = 0.198), median intradialytic (85.0/60.0%, κ-statistic = 0.333), and intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis SBP (85.0/20.0%, κ-statistic = 0.043). Averaged interdialytic SBP showed high sensitivity/specificity (97.5/80.0%) and strong agreement (κ-statistic = 0.775). In ROC analyses, scheduled interdialytic SBP/DBP had the highest AUC (0.967/0.951), sensitivity (90.0/88.0%), and specificity (100.0/90.0%). CONCLUSION: In IDH patients, only averaged scheduled interdialytic but not pre- and post-dialysis, nor intradialytic BP recordings show reasonable agreement with ABPM. Interdialytic BP recordings only could be used for hypertension diagnosis and management in these subjects.

Sex differences in ambulatory blood pressure levels, control and phenotypes of hypertension in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control is worse in men than women with chronic kidney disease or kidney transplantation. So far, no study investigated possible sex differences in the prevalence, control, and phenotypes of BP according to predialysis and 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in hemodialysis patients. Further, no study has evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of predialysis BP in male and female hemodialysis patients. METHOD: One hundred and twenty-nine male and 91 female hemodialysis patients that underwent 48-h ABPM were included in this analysis. Hypertension was defined as: (1) predialysis SBP ≥140 or DBP ≥90 mmHg or use of antihypertensive agents, (2) 48-h SBP ≥130 or DBP ≥80 mmHg or use of antihypertensive agents. RESULTS: Predialysis SBP did not differ between groups, while DBP was marginally higher in men. 48-h SBP (137.2 ±â€Š17.4 vs. 132.2 ±â€Š19.2 mmHg, P  = 0.045), DBP (81.9 ±â€Š12.1 vs. 75.9 ±â€Š11.7 mmHg, P  < 0.001) and daytime SBP/DBP were higher in men. The prevalence of hypertension was not different between groups with the use of predialysis BP or 48-h ABPM (92.2% vs. 89%, P  = 0.411). However, concordant lack of control was more frequent in men than women (65.3% vs. 49.4%, P  = 0.023). The prevalence of white-coat and masked hypertension did not differ between groups; the misclassification rate with the use of predialysis BP was marginally higher in women. In both sexes, predialysis BP showed low accuracy and poor agreement with ABPM for diagnosing ambulatory hypertension [area-under-the-curve in receiver-operating-curve analyses (SBP/DBP): men, 0.681/0.802, women: 0.586/0.707]. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory BP levels are higher in male than female hemodialysis patients. Although hypertension prevalence is similar between sexes, men have worse rates of control. The diagnostic accuracy of predialysis BP was equally poor in men and women.

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.

Accuracy of Peridialytic, Intradialytic, and Scheduled Interdialytic Recordings in Detecting Elevated Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Hemodialysis Patients.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Current recommendations suggest the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as the gold standard for hypertension diagnosis and management in hemodialysis patients. This study assesses the accuracy of peridialytic, intradialytic, and scheduled interdialytic recordings in detecting abnormally elevated 44-hour interdialytic blood pressure (BP). STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic test study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: 242 Greek hemodialysis patients who successfully underwent ABPM. TESTS COMPARED: Ambulatory BP was used as the reference method to evaluate the accuracy of the following BP metrics: predialysis and postdialysis BP, intradialytic BP, intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis BP, and scheduled interdialytic BP (on an off-dialysis day at 8:00 am, 8:00 pm, and their average). OUTCOME: 44-hour ambulatory systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) ≥ 130/80 mm Hg. RESULTS: The 44-hour SBP/DBP levels differed significantly from predialysis and postdialysis BP but showed no or minor differences compared with the other BP metrics. Bland-Altman plots showed an absence of systematic bias for all metrics but large between-method difference and wider 95% limits of agreement for predialysis and postdialysis BP compared with intradialytic, intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis, and averaged scheduled interdialytic BP. The sensitivity/specificity and κ-statistic for diagnosing 44-hour SBP ≥ 130 mm Hg were low for predialysis (86.5%/38.6%, κ-statistic = 0.27) and postdialysis BP (63.1%/73.3%, κ-statistic = 0.35), but better for intradialytic BP (77.3%/76.2%, κ-statistic = 0.53), intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis BP (76.6%/72.3%, κ-statistic = 0.49), and scheduled interdialytic BP (87.9%/77.2%, κ-statistic = 0.66). In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, the areas under the curve (AUC) of predialysis SBP (AUC = 0.723) and postdialysis SBP (AUC = 0.746) were significantly lower than that of intradialytic SBP (AUC = 0.850), intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis SBP (AUC = 0.850), and scheduled interdialytic SBP (AUC = 0.917) (z test, P < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). Similar observations were made for DBP. LIMITATIONS: Typical home BP data were not obtained, and no assessment was obtained of the reproducibility of the examined metrics over time. CONCLUSIONS: Intradialytic, intradialytic plus pre/postdialysis, and scheduled interdialytic BP measurements were more accurate in detecting elevated 44-hour BP than predialysis and postdialysis BP. Averaged intradialytic BP recordings or scheduled readings at the off-dialysis day appear to be promising approaches to the diagnosis of elevated BP in hemodialysis.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ambulatory Pulse Wave Velocity Is a Stronger Predictor of Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality Than Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Hemodialysis Patients.

Arterial stiffness and augmentation of aortic blood pressure (BP) measured in office are known cardiovascular risk factors in hemodialysis patients. This study examines the prognostic significance of ambulatory brachial BP, central BP, pulse wave velocity (PWV), and heart rate-adjusted augmentation index [AIx(75)] in this population. A total of 170 hemodialysis patients underwent 48-hour ambulatory monitoring with Mobil-O-Graph-NG during a standard interdialytic interval and followed-up for 28.1±11.2 months. The primary end point was a combination of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. Secondary end points included: (1) all-cause mortality; (2) cardiovascular mortality; and (3) a combination of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure. During follow-up, 37(21.8%) patients died and 46(27.1%) had cardiovascular events. Cumulative freedom from primary end point was similar for quartiles of predialysis-systolic BP (SBP), 48-hour peripheral-SBP, and central-SBP, but was progressively longer for increasing quartiles for 48-hour peripheral-diastolic BP and central-diastolic BP and shorter for increasing quartiles of 48-hour central pulse pressure (83.7%, 71.4%, 69.0%, 62.8% [log-rank P=0.024]), PWV (93.0%, 81.0%, 57.1%, 55.8% [log-rank P<0.001]), and AIx(75) (88.4%, 66.7%, 69.0%, 62.8% [log-rank P=0.014]). The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and the combined outcome were similar for quartiles of predialysis-SBP, 48-hour peripheral-SBP, and central-SBP, but were increasing with higher ambulatory PWV and AIx(75). In multivariate analysis, 48-hour PWV was the only vascular parameter independently associated with the primary end point (hazard ratios, 1.579; 95% confidence intervals, 1.187-2.102). Ambulatory PWV, AIx(75), and central pulse pressure are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality, whereas office and ambulatory SBP are not. These findings further support that arterial stiffness is the prominent cardiovascular risk factor in hemodialysis.