Blood pressure assessment in haemodialysis patients: comparison between pre-dialysis blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure measurement.

AIM: Hypertension is common in haemodialysis (HD) patients. Determining the most appropriate method of blood pressure (BP) measurement, representative of target organ damage, is still an issue. BP variations between pre- and post-HD treatment, or between on-dialysis day and off-dialysis day, are common. The aim of this study was to examine the possible differences between pre-HD office BP (OBP) levels, inter-HD (iHD) or HDday 24 h ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM) with 48 h ABPM, where the latter was considered the gold standard. METHODS: 163 HD patients were studied. BP was monitored consecutively for 48 h with a Takeda TM2421 device, then sub-analysed into two periods of 24 h: HD and iHD day. An average of 12 sessions pre-HD OBP measurements was determined. RESULTS: OBP significantly overestimates systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) when compared with 48 hABPM. SBP and DBP are significantly higher on iHD day than on HD day: 141.2 1 20.8 versus 137.9 1 20.9, and 77.1 1 11.1 versus 76.1 1 10.9 (P < 0.01). No differences of SBP night/day ratio were reported between 48 hABPM and iHD 24 h ABPM or HD 24 h ABPM. The highest correlations were reported between 48 h SBP/DBP with iHD or HD 24 h ABPM (r 2 = 0.95, P < 0.001), while the lowest between 48 h SBP/DBP and OBP (r 2 = 0.40,P < 0.01, r 2 = 0.12, P < 0.01). The narrowest limits of agreement using the Bland and Altman test were reported between 48 h SBP or DBP and 24 h iHD or HD day ABPM. Considering 48 h ABPM, 80.5% of patients had BP higher than the norm, compared with 61.7% of patients in the case of OBP (c2 = 13.28, P < 0.001). The sensibility for detecting hypertension for iHD day 24 h ABPM was 98.4%, with specificity of 90%. The sensibility of 24 h HDday ABPM was 90.3%, with specificity 96.6%. In the case of OBP, sensibility and specificity were considerably lower, that is, 72.6% and 83.3% respectively. CONCLUSION: Significant differences are shown between OBP and 48 h ABPM in the recognition of a hypertensive state. OBP measurement has a lower sensibility and specificity than 24 h ABPM, which remains a valid alternative approach to 48 h ABPM in HD patients. Errors of OBP estimation should be taken into account, with possible negative impact on treatment strategies and epidemiology studies

Association between brain natriuretic peptide and extracellular water in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) is a hormone released by the left ventricle (LV) as a consequence of pressure or volume load. BNP increases in left ventricle hypertrophy (LVH), LV dysfunction, and it can also predict cardiovascular mortality in the general population as well as those undergoing hemodialysis (HD). We investigated the association between BNP and volume load in HD patients. METHODS: We studied 32 HD patients (60 +/- 17.1 years) treated thrice-weekly for at least 6 months. Exclusion criteria were: LV dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, malnutrition. Blood chemistries and BNP were determined on mid-week HD day. Blood pressure (BP) and cardiac diameters were determined on mid-week inter-HD day by using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and echocardiography. Bioimpedance was performed after HD and extracellular water (ECW%), calculated as a percentage of total body water, was considered as the index of volume load. RESULTS: Patients were divided into quartiles of 8 patients depending on the BNP value: 1st qtl BNP < or =45.5 pg/ml (28.4 +/- 10.9 pg/ml), 2nd qtl BNP > 45.5 pg/ml and < or =99.1 pg/ml (60.9 +/- 15.8 pg/ml), 3rd qtl BNP > 99.1 pg/ml and < or =231.8 pg/ml (160.5 +/- 51.8 pg/ml), 4th qtl BNP > 231.8 pg/ml (664.8 +/- 576.6 pg/ml). No inter-quartile differences were reported in age, HD age, body mass index spKt/V, or blood chemistries. As expected patients in the 4th BNP quartile showed the highest values of 24-hour pulse pressure (PP) and LV mass index (LVMi). The study of body composition revealed significant differences in ECW%, which was higher in the 4th quartile when compared to the others (4th q: 50 +/- 9.6%, vs 1st q. 40.1 +/- 2.4%, 2nd q. 41.9 +/- 5%, 3rd q. 42.8 +/- 6.9%). Using multiple stepwise linear regression where BNP was the dependent variable, and PP and ECW% the independent variables, only ECW% maintained statistical significance as a predictor of BNP levels (PP: Beta = 0.86, p = 0.58; ECW%: Beta = 0.64, p < 0.001 p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have investigated the relationship between plasma BNP and volume load, and direct evidence is lacking. We used bioimpedance and the determination of ECW% to assess volume state in HD patients finding an association between BNP and ECW. The increased synthesis and release of BNP from the LV in HD patients appear to be mainly related to volume stress rather than to pressure load.

Association between extracellular water, left ventricular mass and hypertension in haemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) are present in the majority of patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD). These two pathologies persist after dialysis onset, and pharmacological therapy is often required for adequate control of blood pressure (BP). Although fluid overload is a determinant of hypertension, clinical assessment of this parameter remains difficult and unsatisfactory. Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) spectroscopy and the relative determination of extracellular water (ECW%) may provide a simple and inexpensive tool for investigating fluid overload. We studied 110 patients on thrice-weekly HD to determine whether ECW body content correlates with hypertension and LVH in this patient population. METHODS: Hypertension was determined according to the WHO criteria (office BP >/= 140/90 and/or the use of antihypertensive therapy). Twenty-four hour BP monitoring and echocardiography were performed on midweek inter-HD days. Blood chemistries, dialysis dose (spKt/V) and bioimpedance were analysed on midweek HD days. RESULTS: Hypertension was present in 74.5% of patients. There were no differences for age, spKt/V, haemoglobin, serum creatinine and residual renal function between normotensive and hypertensive patients. Twenty-four hour systolic BP (SBP), 24 h diastolic BP and 24 h pulse pressure were higher in hypertensive patients, in spite of antihypertensive therapy. LVH was present in 61.8% of patients. BIA revealed that ECW% was increased in LVH+ patients (LVH+ = 47.5 +/- 7.9%, LVH- = 42.4 +/- 6.2%, P = 0.01) and in hypertensive patients compared with normotensives (46.5 +/- 7.7% vs 43 +/- 7.2%, P = 0.02). Dry body weights and inter-HD body weight increases did not differ between hypertensive and normotensive patients nor between patients with or without LVH. ECW was correlated with SBP (r = 0.35, P < 0.01) and with left ventricular mass index (LVMi(g/sqm)) (r = 0.49, P < 0.001). A stepwise multiple linear regression model revealed that LVMi(g/sqm) was significantly correlated with ECW%, SBP and male gender (r = 0.65, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LVH and hypertension are present in a majority of HD patients and they are closely correlated with one another. We found associations between fluid load, measured by BIA and expressed as ECW, and BP and LVM.