Dialysis Unit Blood Pressure Research Articles

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

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. 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. 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). 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.

Weekly pattern of dialysis unit blood pressure is a promising marker for prognosis evaluation in hemodialysis population.

Dialysis unit blood pressure (BP) pattern showed superiority in prognostic evaluation and interdialytic BP burden assessment. However previous studies mainly focused on the recurrent BP pattern within a session (intradialytic BP change or intradialytic BP slope), the clinical value of the weekly pattern of dialysis unit BP is unknown. We performed a prospective cohort study in adult end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on thrice weekly hemodialysis (HD). The slope and the change of the postdialysis systolic BP (SBP) in the course of a week (post-SBP slope and post-SBP change) were used to characterize the weekly pattern of dialysis unit BP. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and first cardiovascular event. We also measured the home BP in our cohort. One hundred and twenty-nine subjects were followed over a median of 31 months. Higher post-SBP slope (≥0.185) was independently associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and first cardiovascular event. Results were similar for increased post-SBP change. HD patients with a higher post-SBP slope or an increased post-SBP change also had significant increased interdialytic BP burden measured by home SBP on both dialysis days and non-dialysis days. Post-SBP slope and post-SBP change might be promising dialysis unit BP markers for prognostic evaluation and interdialytic BP burden assessment.

Dialysis unit blood pressure two hours after hemodialysis is useful for predicting home blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure in maintenance hemodialysis patients.

This study aimed to determine which BP measurement obtained in the HD unit correlated best with home BP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). We retrospectively analyzed data from 40 patients that received maintenance HD who had available home BP and ABPM data. Dialysis unit BPs were the averages of pre-, 2hr- (2 h after starting HD), and post-HD BP during a 9-month study. Home BP was defined as the average of morning and evening home BPs. Dialysis unit BP and home BP were compared over the 9-month study period. ABPM was performed once for 24 h in the absence of dialysis during the final 2 weeks of the study period and was compared to the 2-week dialysis unit BP and home BP. There was a significant difference between dialysis unit systolic blood pressure (SBP) and home SBP over the 9-month period. No significant difference was observed between the 2hr-HD SBP and home SBP. When analyzing 2 weeks of dialysis unit BP and home BP, including ABPM, SBPs were significantly different (dialysis unit BP > home BP > ABPM; P=0.009). Consistent with the 9-month study period, no significant difference was observed between 2hr-HD SBP and home SBP (P=0.809). The difference between 2hr-HD SBP and ambulatory SBP was not significant (P=0.113). In conclusion, the 2hr-HD SBP might be useful for predicting home BP and ABPM in HD patients.

Interdialytic 24-Hours Ambulatory Blood Pressure versus Dialysis Unit Blood Pressure for the Diagnosis of Electrocardiographic-Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Chronic Hemodialysis Black Patients

Background and Aim: In hemodialysis patients, 24-hours interdialytic ABPM better detects TOD than dialysis unit blood pressure. Therefore, the present study was aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of 24-hours ABPM vs. dialysis unit BPs for the diagnosis of ECG-LVH in steady state chronic hemodialysis black patients. Methods: From March 31 to September 30, 2018, interdialytic ABPM was performed after a mid-week hemodialysis session for 24 hours using a Spacelab 90207 ABPM monitor in the non-access arm in 45 stable chronic hemodialysis black patients (age ≥ 20 years, hemodialysis for at least 3 months and informed consent) attending 3 hemodialysis centers in Kinshasa. Ambulatory BP was recorded every 20 minutes during the day (6 AM to 10 PM) and every 30 minutes during the night (10 PM to 6 AM). ECG-LVH was defined using Cornell product criteria. ROC curve method was used to assess the performance of dialysis unit BPs vs. interdialytic 24-hours ABPM in diagnosing ECG-LVH. P 0.05 defined the level of statistical significance. Results: Whatever the method of BP measurement, all the SBP values were related to ECG-LVH with similar AUC and overlapping 95% CI; however, they were not significantly different from each other. 24-hours interdialytic ambulatory SBP (AUC 0.748; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.94) had the highest area under the curve. Conclusion: The present study showed that although all the two BP measurement methods equally detected ECG-LVH, 24-hours ABPM tended to have the highest diagnostic performance.

PP.28.14] BENEFIT OF FORTY-EIGHT-HOUR AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING IN HEMODIALYSIS POPULATION

Objective: Data derived from ambulatory BP (blood pressure) monitoring (ABPM) allow better characterization of BP during everyday activities and sleep, and, most importantly, better correlate with target organ damage, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, and long-term patient prognosis than clinic BP. The aim of our work is to define the role of ABPM in hemodialysis (HD) patients and assess the correlation of its results with the echocardiographic data. Design and method: The study has a cross-sectional design. We enrolled 17 patients. We performed ABPM for 48 hours (day of dialysis (D1), day following dialysis (D2)) in all patients. ABPM was recorded every 20 min during the day and every 30 min during the night. Dialysis unit BP recordings measured before and after dialysis were collected prospectively at the time of the patient visit. Two-dimensional- guided M-mode echocardiograms were performed before and after HD. Results: According to the collected BP before HD, 4 (23.5%) patients had HTN, against 10 (58.8%) according to the measures taken after HD. According to ABPM, we defined 4 categories of BP: 5 (29.4%) patients were normotensive, 4 (23.5%) with sustained HTN, 4 (23.5%) with masked HTN and 4 (23.5%) with white- coat HTN. Systolic BP of 48 H correlated significantly with pre and post dialysis BP (p < 0.05). Pulse pressure (PP) of 48 H correlated significantly with pre and post dialysis PP (p < 0.01). The study of the variation of nocturnal BP objectified a dipper profile in 3 cases (17.6%), non-dipper in 12 cases (70.6%), inverted-dipper in 2 cases (11.8%). Three patients (17.6%) had echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy. We found a significant decrease in the mass of the left ventricle after HD from 318.41 g / m2 ± 71.21 to 261.95 g / m2 ± 86.56 (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Our study confirms the high prevalence of BP abnormalities at the ABPM in HD population. Not only ABPM helps in the diagnosis and categorization of HTN, but can also provide prognostic. We suggest that ABPM should become the norm for the diagnosis of HTN and prognostic evaluation in chronic HD population.

Which dialysis unit blood pressure is the most accurate for predicting home blood pressure in patients undergoing hemodialysis?

Background/AimsWe investigated which dialysis unit blood pressure (BP) is the most useful for predicting home BP in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD).MethodsPatients undergoing HD who had been treated > 3 months were included in this study. Exclusion criteria were hospitalized patients with acute illness and changes in dry weight and anti-hypertensive drugs 2 weeks before the study. We used the dialysis unit BP recording data, such as pre-HD, intra-HD, post-HD, mean pre-HD, and post-HD (pre-post-HD), mean pre-HD, intra-HD, and post-HD (pre-intra-post-HD) BP. Home BP (the same period of dialysis unit BP) was monitored as a reference method during 2 weeks using the same automatic oscillometric device. Patients were asked to record their BP three times daily (wake up, between noon and 6:00 PM, and at bedtime).ResultsSignificant differences were detected between home systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pre-HD, post-HD, and intra-HD SBP (p = 0.003, p = 0.001, p = 0.016, respectively). In contrast, no differences were observed between home SBP and pre-intra-post-HD and pre-post-HD SBP (p = 0.235, p = 0.307, respectively). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for pre-intra-post-HD and prepost-HD SBP with 2-week home BP as the reference standard were 0.812 and 0.801, respectively.ConclusionsThese results suggest that pre-intra-post-HD and pre-post-HD SBP had similar accuracy for predicting mean 2-week home SBP in HD patients. Therefore, pre-intra-post-HD and pre-post-HD SBP should be useful for predicting home SBP in HD patients if ambulatory or home BP measurements are unavailable.

Cross-sectional association of volume, blood pressures, and aortic stiffness with left ventricular mass in incident hemodialysis patients: the Predictors of Arrhythmic and Cardiovascular Risk in End-Stage Renal Disease (PACE) study.

BackgroundHigher left ventricular mass (LV) strongly predicts cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients. Although several parameters of preload and afterload have been associated with higher LV mass, whether these parameters independently predict LV mass, remains unclear.MethodsThis study examined a cohort of 391 adults with incident hemodialysis enrolled in the Predictors of Arrhythmic and Cardiovascular Risk in End Stage Renal Disease (PACE) study. The main exposures were systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), pulse pressure, arterial stiffness by pulse wave velocity (PWV), volume status estimated by pulmonary pressures using echocardiogram and intradialytic weight gain. The primary outcome was baseline left ventricular mass index (LVMI).ResultsEach systolic, diastolic blood, and pulse pressure measurement was significantly associated with LVMI by linear regression regardless of dialysis unit BP or non-dialysis day BP measurements. Adjusting for cardiovascular confounders, every 10 mmHg increase in systolic or diastolic BP was significantly associated with higher LVMI (SBP β = 7.26, 95 % CI: 4.30, 10.23; DBP β = 10.05, 95 % CI: 5.06, 15.04), and increased pulse pressure was also associated with higher LVMI (β = 0.71, 95 % CI: 0.29, 1.13). Intradialytic weight gain was also associated with higher LVMI but attenuated effects after adjustment (β = 3.25, 95 % CI: 0.67, 5.83). PWV and pulmonary pressures were not associated with LVMI after multivariable adjustment (β = 0.19, 95 % CI: −1.14, 1.79; and β = 0.10, 95 % CI: −0.51, 0.70, respectively). Simultaneously adjusting for all main exposures demonstrated that higher BP was independently associated with higher LVMI (SBP β = 5.64, 95 % CI: 2.78, 8.49; DBP β = 7.29, 95 % CI: 2.26, 12.31, for every 10 mmHg increase in BP).ConclusionsAmong a younger and incident hemodialysis population, higher systolic, diastolic, or pulse pressure, regardless of timing with dialysis, is most associated with higher LV mass. Future studies should consider the use of various BP measures in examining the impact of BP on LVM and cardiovascular disease. Findings from such studies could suggest that high BP should be more aggressively treated to promote LVH regression in incident hemodialysis patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-015-0131-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Poor agreement between dialysis unit blood pressure and interdialytic ambulatory blood pressure.

Although ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring (ABPM) is often considered to have an advantage over dialysis unit blood pressure (BP) in dialysis patients, the exact relationship between these two measurements of BP has not been well determined. In a cohort of 90 Chinese dialysis patients, agreement between dialysis unit BP (predialysis and postdialysis BP) and interdialytic ABP was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient for quantitative analysis, and inter-rater agreement (κ) for qualitative analysis. Limits of agreement between dialysis unit BP and ABP were wide (predialysis systolic BP: -33.5 to 20.9 mm Hg; predialysis diastolic BP: -22.2 to 11.9 mm Hg; postdialysis systolic BP: -25.4 to 26.5 mm Hg; postdialysis diastolic BP: -18.4 to 12.3 mm Hg). Lin's concordance correlation coefficient exhibited a poor agreement with concordance correlation coefficients of 0.75, 0.81, 0.64, and 0.75 for predialysis systolic BP, postdialysis systolic BP, predialysis diastolic BP, and postdialysis diastolic BP, respectively. When BP level was classified into quartiles, an increasing trend for incorrect classification rate was observed with deleterious hypertension, with the highest value in grade 3 hypertension (100% and 75.0% for predialysis and postdialysis BP, respectively). Therefore, these data suggest that agreement between dialysis unit BP and interdialytic ABP is poor in Chinese dialysis patients, and the bias for patients with higher degree of hypertension is more prominent.

Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in CKD

Hypertension is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the prevalence increases with declining kidney function. Hypertension management is particularly important due to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke in the CKD population. Most clinical decisions for blood pressure (BP) management are based on BP readings in the office or dialysis unit. These BP readings often are inaccurate. Home BP monitoring provides more data than conventional clinic or dialysis-unit BP measurements and is relatively easy to accomplish, is cost-effective, and has been shown to have an increasing role in the management of BP in the CKD population. This In Practice article focuses on the use of home BP monitoring in patients with CKD. We also provide guidance for choosing a BP monitoring device and review recent literature regarding the use of home BP monitoring and the effect on CKD outcomes. In addition, we address the future use of electronic medical records and how they may interface with home BP monitoring.

Home systolic blood pressure on the morning of dialysis days has prognostic impact for hypertensive hemodialysis patients

BackgroundHypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular (CV) disease in the general population. Although hypertension is very common in maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients, adequate blood pressure (BP) values and measurement timing have not been defined.MethodsA total of 49 hypertensive HD patients were recruited. Average age was 63 ± 11 years, and duration of dialysis therapy was 6.2 ± 4.2 years. Dialysis unit BPs and various types of home BPs were separately measured, and which BPs were the most critical markers in evaluating the effect of hypertension on left ventricular hypertrophy and CV events was investigated.ResultsPredialysis systolic BPs were not correlated with any home BPs. Left ventricular mass index (LVMI) had a significant positive correlation with home BPs, especially morning systolic BPs on HD days (P < 0.01) and non-HD days (P < 0.05), on univariate and multivariate analysis. In contrast, predialysis BPs did not correlate with LVMI. During the follow-up period (47 ± 18 months), it was demonstrated that diabetes and home BPs, especially systolic BPs on the morning of HD days, were significant predictors of CV events on multivariate Cox regression analysis. A 10 mmHg increase in BP had a significantly elevated relative risk for CV events.ConclusionsHome BP, especially systolic BPs in the morning on HD days, can provide pivotal information for management of HD patients.

Managing hypertension using home blood pressure monitoring among haemodialysis patients--a call to action

Over the last hundred years, the diagnosis of hypertension has rested upon the indirect measurement of blood pressure (BP) through the auscultation of Korotkoff sounds. Among patients on haemodialysis, BP measurement is particularly important because disparate outcomes are obtained depending on the timing, location, frequency and technique of measurement of BP [1]. This disparity of outcomes has profound implications for the management of hypertension especially among haemodialysis patients. Why home BP monitoring should become the standard of care among patients on haemodialysis is the subject of this review. To compare tests, such as one that tests home BP to pre-dialysis BP, a diagnostic test study must be performed. A diagnostic test study can have one of the following four paradigms (Figure 1): Test A (e.g. home BP) is compared to test B (e.g. pre-dialysis BP) using a ‘gold-standard’ or reference test. If test A performs better than test B, then test A is preferred. Whether test A should be favoured over test B depends on a variety of considerations such as its cost, practicality, invasiveness and acceptability. The two tests may be compared not to a reference standard but to some intermediate end point. A valid intermediate end point among hypertensive patients is the presence of target organ damage such as left ventricular hypertrophy. In other words, home BP can be compared to pre- or post-dialysis BP and the results compared in their ability to predict echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy. If home BP measurement is more strongly related to target organ damage then, compared to paradigm 1, it provides a higher level of evidence that it is superior to pre-dialysis or post-dialysis BP. The two tests can be compared with respect to prognosis, for example, all-cause mortality. For example, with respect to outcomes such as all-cause mortality, dialysis unit BP measurements can be compared to home BP measurements. If home BP measurement is more strongly related to all-cause mortality then, compared to paradigm 2, it provides even a higher level of evidence that it is superior to pre-dialysis or post-dialysis BP. Finally, a randomized controlled trial can be performed to assess the value of a diagnostic test. For example, management of the patient based on home BP monitoring vs dialysis unit BP measurements can be compared in a randomized trial. If the outcomes are better with home BP monitoring, then home BP monitoring would be said to be superior. The outcomes can be one of three outcomes: the reference test, in this case ambulatory BP, regression of left ventricular hypertrophy or improvement in all-cause mortality. This paradigm would provide the highest level of evidence of the superiority of home BP recordings over dialysis unit BP recordings. Fig. 1 Relative strength of evidence of superiority of test A vs test B. This review will focus on the data which support the use of out-of-office BP monitoring among patients on haemodialysis. The use of out-of-office BP monitoring among patients with chronic kidney disease who are not on haemodialysis is discussed elsewhere [2].

Age-related Blood Pressure Patterns and Blood Pressure Variability among Hemodialysis Patients

Despite the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease among hemodialysis patients, the relationship between age and blood pressure (BP) is not well understood. It was postulated that the relationship of BP to age differs among hemodialysis patients versus the general population and that there is significant variability in dialysis unit BP measurements. To explore this hypothesis, the patterns of systolic, diastolic, mean arterial, and pulse pressures in the general population using data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants (n = 9242) were compared with those in a cohort of hemodialysis patients (n = 9849). In contrast to the increase in systolic BP with age in the general population, systolic BP was elevated in young hemodialysis patients and declined slightly among the elderly. The inverted "U"-shape relationship between age and diastolic BP in the general population was absent in hemodialysis patients. Diastolic BP was elevated among hemodialysis patients <50 yr of age and declined with advancing age. Mean arterial and pulse pressures were elevated among young hemodialysis patients and exhibited less age dependency than in the general population. Variability in BP within patients was similar to that between patients. The relationship of BP to age differed from that in the general population. The variability in dialysis unit BP measurements may limit their use in managing hypertension and predicting outcomes. Nevertheless, dialysis unit BP measurements are necessary to minimize acute complications during the dialysis procedure.

Location Not Quantity of Blood Pressure Measurements Predicts Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients

Background: Blood pressure (BP) measurements obtained outside the dialysis unit are prognostically superior. Whether it is the greater number of measurements made outside the dialysis unit that correlates with prognosis or whether BPs outside dialysis units are ecologically more valid is unknown. Methods and Results: A prospective cohort study was conducted in 133 patients on chronic hemodialysis. BP was measured by the patients at home for 1 week, over an interdialytic interval by ambulatory recording, and by ‘routine’ and standardized methods in the dialysis unit for 2 weeks. Up to 6 BPs were randomly selected from a 44-hour recording of ambulatory or 1-week recording of home BPs, such that the dialysis unit BPs were exactly matched to the number of ambulatory or home BPs. The relationship with left ventricular hypertrophy and all-cause mortality was analyzed using receiver-operating characteristic curves and Cox proportional hazards analysis, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 24 months, 46 patients (31%) died. A BP change of 10/5 mm Hg increased the risk of all-cause mortality by 1.22 (95% CI 1.07–1.38)/1.18 (95% CI 1.05–1.31) with the average of the 44-hour recording and 1.20 (95% CI 1.07–1.34)/1.15 (95% CI 1.03–1.27) when up to 6 random BPs from the same ambulatory recording were drawn and averaged. With home BPs the hazard ratios were 1.17/1.15 per 10/5 mm Hg increase in BP with the average of 1-week recording and 1.18/1.13 when up to 6 random BPs were drawn and averaged. Limited duration ambulatory BP monitoring of any 6-hour interval during the first 24 h or 4-day home BP recorded after the midweek dialysis was similarly predictive of all-cause mortality. Conclusions: In patients on hemodialysis, the location, not the quantity, of the BP recordings obtained outside the dialysis unit is associated with target organ damage and mortality.

Dialysis dose and the diagnosis of hypertension in hemodialysis patients

To determine whether simultaneous consideration of pre and postdialysis blood pressure (BP) can improve the prediction of interdialytic ambulatory BP in hemodialysis patients, we analyzed BP obtained before and after dialysis using routine or standardized methods and by self-measurement at home in 104 hemodialysis patients. Evidence for effect modification was tested for several plausible demographic, clinical and laboratory factors. Postdialysis BP when considered jointly with predialysis BP improved the diagnostic performance of standardized dialysis unit BP measurements [receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) 0.91 for joint, 0.85 for prehemodialysis ROC (P=0.01 for difference in AUC)]. A trend to improvement existed in ROC AUC with routine dialysis unit BP measurement [ROC AUC 0.88 for joint, 0.82 for prehemodialysis ROC (P=0.055 for difference in AUC)]. Dialysis dose measured by urea reduction ratio was a strong effect modifier for the determination of hypertension by routine (P=0.012) and standardized (P=0.002) dialysis unit BP measurements. This effect modification was not seen with home BP (P=0.26). Simultaneous consideration of predialysis and postdialysis BPs obtained over 2 weeks can improve the diagnosis of hypertension in hemodialysis patients. Dialysis dose may significantly influence the diagnosis of hypertension when dialysis unit BPs are used.

Home blood pressure monitoring improves the diagnosis of hypertension in hemodialysis patients

Using interdialytic ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings as the reference standard, we compared the performance of routine, standardized and home BP monitoring in 104 predominantly black patients on chronic hemodialysis for at least 3 months. Dialysis unit BP recordings were averaged over 2 weeks and home BP over 1 week. Awake ambulatory BP of > or =135 mmHg systolic or > or =85 mmHg diastolic was taken as evidence of hypertension. Average awake ambulatory BP was 128.1+/-21.6/73.5+/-13.5 mmHg, home BP 141.3+/-21.9/78.7+/-11.9 mmHg, standardized pre-dialysis BP 141.7+/-22.6/74.2+/-13.5 mmHg and post-dialysis 119.9+/-20.5/69.1+/-13.1 mmHg, routine pre-dialysis 145.4+/-21.8/79.0+/-13.1 mmHg and post-dialysis 131.5+/-19.2/72.5+/-11.4 mmHg. Sixty-three percent of the patients had well-controlled BP by ambulatory BP monitoring and isolated diastolic hypertension was rare (3%). The standard deviation of the differences between ambulatory and routine pre-dialysis BP was 17.6 mmHg, routine post-dialysis was 16.1 mmHg, standardized pre-dialysis was 16.4 mmHg, standardized post-dialysis was 14.1 mmHg, and home BP was 14.2 mmHg. The area under receiver operating characteristic curves was similar for home and standardized BP but lower for routine BP. Home systolic BP of > or =150 mmHg averaged over 1 week had the best combination of sensitivity (80%) and specificity (84.1%) in diagnosing systolic hypertension--present in 94% of the hypertensive dialysis patients. Home BP monitoring is similar to standardized recording of BP in hemodialysis patients. A systolic BP threshold of 150 mmHg at home averaged over 1 week serves as a useful predictor of hypertension diagnosed by ambulatory BP monitoring.