Intradialytic Blood Pressure Variability Research Articles

The Association between Frailty Status and Blood Pressure Variability in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND: The high mortality rate of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis (CKD-HD) is influenced by the high number of cardiovascular-induced death and blood pressure variability (BPV). AIM: The aim of this study is to understand the association between frailty status and intradialytic BPV. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study examining patients with CKD who underwent hemodialysis (HD) at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital from August to September 2022. BPV was calculated using the average real variability method and frailty status was assessed based on Frailty Index 40 Item. The association between frailty and systolic BPV was analyzed using the Chi-Square test, followed by logistic regression analysis to exclude the influence of the confounding variable. RESULTS: Out of 88 subjects recruited, 28.4% (95% CI: 18.98–37.82) were considered frail, 55.7% (95% CI: 45.32–66.08) were pre-frail, and 15.9% (95% CI: 8.26–23.54) were robust. The mean intradialytic BPV was 10.11 (8.60–13.35). It was found that the trend increased along with the rising frailty status, and the mean difference of intradialytic systolic BPV based on the results of Kruskal–Wallis testing had statistical significance. The result of the multivariate analysis revealed an increase in BPV prevalence in patients with pre-frailty (adjusted PR = 1.606, 95% CI: 0.681–3.787) and frailty (adjusted PR = 1.886 (95% CI: 0.783–4.545). CONCLUSION: Statistically, there is no association between frailty status and intradialytic BPV. However, clinically, a dose-response association was observed, indicating that the higher the frailty status, the higher the prevalence ratio for the occurrence of high BPV.

Intra-dialytic blood pressure variability is a greater predictor of cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients

BackgroundShort-term and long-term blood pressure variability (BPV) in hemodialysis (HD) population are risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and all-cause mortality. There is no full consensus on the best BPV metric. We compared the prognostic role of intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics for CVD morbidity and all-cause mortality in HD patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort of 120 patients on HD was followed up for 44 months. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and baseline characteristics were collected for 3 months. We calculated intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics, including standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), variability independent of the mean (VIM), average real variability (ARV) and residual. The primary outcomes were CVD events and all-cause mortality.ResultsIn Cox regression analysis, both intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics were associated with increased CVD events (intra-dialytic CV: HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.28–2.27, p < 0.01; visit-to-visit CV: HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12–2.16, p < 0.01), but not associated with increased all-cause mortality (intra-dialytic CV: HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99–1.76, p = 0.06; visit-to-visit CV: HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91–1.63, p = 0.18). Overall, intra-dialytic BPV showed greater prognostic ability than visit-to-visit BPV for both CVD event (AUC of intra-dialytic BPV and visit-to-visit BPV metrics respectively: SD 0.686, 0.606; CV 0.672, 0.425; VIM 0.677, 0.581; ARV 0.684, 0.618; residual 0.652, 0.586) and all-cause mortality (SD 0.671, 0.608; CV 0.662, 0.575; VIM 0.669, 0.581; ARV 0.529, 0.588; residual 0.651, 0.602).ConclusionCompared to visit-to-visit BPV, intra-dialytic BPV is a greater predictor of CVD event in HD patients. No obvious priority was found among various BPV metrics.

Feeding during Dialysis Increases Intradialytic Blood Pressure Variability and Reduces Dialysis Adequacy.

Whether hemodialysis patients should be allowed or even encouraged to eat during dialysis remains a controversial topic. This cross-over study aimed to evaluate the impact of feeding during dialysis on intradialytic blood pressure (BP) profile and dialysis adequacy in 26 patients receiving thrice-weekly, in-center hemodialysis. Over three consecutive mid-week dialysis sessions, intradialytic BP was monitored using the Mobil-O-Graph device (IEM, Stolberg, Germany). Blood samples were also obtained for the determination of the urea reduction ratio (URR). At baseline, patients underwent dialysis without the provision of a meal. In phases A and B, a meal with either high-protein (1.5 gr/kg of body weight) or low-protein (0.7 gr/kg of body weight) content was administered 1 h after the initiation of dialysis. The sequence of meals (high-protein and low-protein or vice versa) was randomized. Average intradialytic systolic BP (SBP) was similar on all three occasions. However, compared with baseline, the standard deviation (SD) (11.7 ± 4.1 vs. 15.6 ± 7.6 mmHg, p < 0.01), coefficient of variation (CV) (9.5 ± 3.7% vs. 12.4 ± 6.0%, p < 0.01) and average real variability (ARV) (9.4 ± 3.9 vs. 12.1 ± 5.2 mmHg, p < 0.01) of intradialytic SBP were higher in phase A. Similarly, compared with the baseline evaluation, all three indices of intradialytic SBP variability were higher in phase B (SD: 11.7 ± 4.1 vs. 14.1 ± 4.5 mmHg, p < 0.05; CV: 9.5 ± 3.7% vs. 11.1 ± 3.8%, p < 0.05; ARV: 9.4 ± 3.9 vs. 10.9 ± 3.9 mmHg, p < 0.05). Compared with dialysis without a meal, the consumption of a high-protein or low-protein meal resulted in a lower URR (73.4 ± 4.3% vs. 65.7 ± 10.7%, p < 0.001 in phase A and 73.4 ± 4.3% vs. 67.6 ± 4.3%, p < 0.001 in phase B, respectively). In conclusion, in the present study, feeding during dialysis was associated with higher intradialytic SBP variability and reduced adequacy of the delivered dialysis.

MO666INVESTIGATIONS INTO DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SHORT DAILY HIGH-FLUX HEMODIALYSIS AND SHORT DAILY ON-LINE HEMODIAFILTRATION

Abstract Background and Aims Short daily hemodialysis (SDHD) has improved outcomes observed in conventional thrice-weekly hemodialysis (CHD). Analogously, short daily hemodiafiltration (SDHDF) has also improved outcomes observed in conventional thrice-weekly hemodiafiltration (CHDF). Furthermore, while high-volume CHDF has been proclaimed to be superior to CHD, there have been no studies comparing SDHDF to SDHD. We performed a comparison of clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic and quality of life features in dialysis patients treated by SDHD or SDHDF. Method Twelve patients (mean age 60.8±15.4 years; 7 males; AVF 7, AVG 1, Catheter 4) on regular in-center SDHD program were studied in a longitudinal, prospective, non-randomized, single-subject A-B-A design comparing high-flux SDHD to post-dilution on-line SDHDF. Patients had been for at least 6 months on SDHD (105-150min, 6x/week; SDHD1) and were clinically stable before conversion to SDHDF (105-150min, 6x/week, mean total convective volume of 63.57±5.44 L per week) for 6 months. Following that, all patients were switched back to SDHD for another 6 months (SDHD2). Data were collected at the end of each period. Dialysis parameters throughout the study were matched and set as follows: high-flux polysulfone dialyzers (BBraun Xevonta Hi 23®), blood flow 300–350 mL/min, dialysate flow 500 mL/min and ultra-purified water (Aquaboss heat disinfection osmosis). The results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Each patient served as his/her own control. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used. Results Slightly higher predialysis mean arterial pressure (MAP) levels were observed during SDHDF (102.51±11.28 mmHg) compared to SDHD1 (MAP 95.5±9.82 mmHg, p&amp;lt;0.01) or to SDHD2 (97.61±11.19 mmHg, p=0.03), without significant differences in intradialytic blood pressure variability. Similarly, there was an increase in predialysis hemoglobin levels (Hb) during SDHDF (Hb 12.39±1.2 g/dL), compared to SDHD1 (Hb 11.30±1.09 g/dL, p=0.02) or to SDHD2 (Hb 11.23±1.84 g/dL, p&amp;lt;0.01), although there were no significant differences in erythropoietin-stimulating agent or iron supplementation weekly doses, transferrin saturation rates or ferritin levels. Solute kinetics measurements showed higher myoglobin clearance during SDHDF (45.95±11.0 mL/min) compared to SDHD1 (20.11±5.2 mL/min, p&amp;lt;0.01) or to SDHD2 (21.39±3.55 mL/min, p&amp;lt;0.01). Likewise, there was a slight increase in β2-microglobulin removal in SDHDF (64.92±10.4 mL/min) compared to SDHD1 (59.78±17.0 mL/min, p&amp;lt;0.01) or to SDHD1 (53.01±7.71 mL/min, p&amp;lt;0.01), whereas there were no significant differences in urea and creatinine clearances. On the other hand, predialysis osteometabolic (serum PTH, calcium, phosphate, alkaline phosphatase, sodium, potassium, glucose and glycated hemoglobin), inflammatory (serum c-reactive protein and interleukin-6) or nutritional (serum albumin, total protein and lipid profile) parameters did not change significantly during the study. Left ventricular mass index, left atrial volume index and global longitudinal strain, assessed by echocardiography at the end of all 3 periods, were similar, as well as brain natriuretic peptide and homocysteine serum levels. Additionally, there were no significant changes in any quality of life features evaluated by Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form, or symptoms assessed by Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised Renal, throughout the full course of the study. Conclusion In spite of mild increase of predialysis mean arterial pressure and hemoglobin levels along with greater removal of middle molecular weight solutes, no others clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic or quality of life findings differed significantly during the three periods. Together, these data do not provide evidence of clinically meaningful benefit from on-line hemodiafiltration over high-flux hemodialysis, both performed six times a week.

Interdialytic blood pressure variability and the risk of stroke in maintenance hemodialysis patients.

Studies on nondialysis populations have linked visit-to-visit blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) to cerebrovascular events and mortality. In view of the high prevalence of hypertension in hemodialysis patients, the predictive values of numerous factors for stroke, especially visit-to-visit BPV, were evaluated in this prospective cohort study.A total of 151 patients were enrolled in this study. The demographic features and various laboratory parameters were analyzed. At each routine hemodialysis visit, the predialysis, intradialysis, and post-dialysis BP measurements were systematically performed. We defined BPV using 4 metrics: standard deviation of the BP, coefficient of variation, average real variability (ARV), and variability independent of mean (VIM). Differences in the predialysis BPs from one treatment to the next (ie, interdialytic variability) and differences in the BPs from predialysis to post-dialysis (ie, intradialytic variability) were both studied in this work.Twenty-one patients developed stroke and 25 patients died. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model revealed a significant relationship between stroke and the interdialytic BPV (both predialysis systolic BP variability and predialysis diastolic BP variability) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C).Our results indicate that a high interdialytic BPV is associated with an increased risk for stroke that is independent of several factors, including age, sex, antihypertensive medication use, and mean BP over time. There is potential that the optimal treatment goal for hemodialysis patients may be to reduce the interdialytic BPV rather than either the mean BP or the intradialytic BPV.

Abstract TP331: The Effect of Intradialytic Blood Pressure Variability Prior to Intracerebral Hemorrhage on Outcomes

Introduction: Increased blood pressure variability (BPV) during chronic hemodialysis (HD) is associated with cardiovascular event and all-cause mortality. However, it is largely unknown whether pre-admission intradialytic BPV affects functional outcomes in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods: We examined consecutive patients with acute spontaneous ICH who had received HD from our prospective stroke registry between January 2012 and March 2019. Patients with premorbid modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 5 and patients who could not be obtained either pre-admission or post-admission blood pressure were excluded from the study. Pre-admission intradialytic BPV was quantified by systolic blood pressure successive variation (SBP-SV) from the last pre-admission dialysis record prior to ICH. Post-admission BPV during initial 24 hours was also quantified using SBP-SV. The clinical outcomes were hematoma expansion and unfavorable outcome at 3-months (mRS score of 5 to 6). Results: Of 54 ICH patients who had received HD, 45 patients were analyzed (median age, 68 years; male, 64%; non-lobar ICH, 93 %).Unfavorable outcome was observed in 26 (58%) patients.Increased pre-admission intradialytic SBP-SV was associated with only post-admission SBP-SV, but not associated with National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, hematoma volume, or hematoma expansion.In univariate analysis, both of pre- and post-admission SBP-SV were associated with unfavorable outcome. In analysis adjusting for age, NIHSS score, and hematoma volume, pre-admission SBP-SV (per SD; odds ratio, 3.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-13.6) was associated with unfavorable outcome, while post-admission SBP-SV was not independently associated with unfavorable outcome. Conclusions: In ICH patients who had received chronic HD, pre-admission intradialytic BPV was independently associated with unfavorable outcome after ICH, suggesting that BP control during HD may be a therapeutic target for avoiding further neurological aggravation even once ICH has occurred.

The Association between Long- and Intra-Dialytic Blood Pressure Variability with All-Cause Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients

Background: Blood pressure variability (BPV) is a potential prognostic predictor for all-cause mortality. Objectives: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the prognostic value of long-term BPV with intra-dialytic BPV in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Materials and Methods: We included 611 HD patients and collected their baseline blood pressure (BP) measurements for 1 year and monitored them for 40 months. Long-term BPV was assessed by pre-dialysis BP SD and pre-dialysis absolute BP residual metric. Intra-dialytic BPV was assessed by intra-dialytic BP average real variability and intra-dialytic absolute BP residual. Results: Long-term systolic BPV showed a weak correlation with mean BP, but a stronger correlation with intra-dialytic BPV. High long-term systolic blood pressure (SBP) SD and long-term SBP residual metrics were associated with high all-cause mortality (p = 0.0084 and 0.0056, respectively), while no such association was found for intra-dialytic BPV or diastolic BPV. According to receiver operating characteristic curve with mortality as dependent variable, long-term SBP residual metric showed the strongest prognostic ability (area under curve [AUC] 0.679, p = 0.0006), which was even stronger in patients with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg (AUC 0.713, p = 0.0004). After completely adjusting for confounders, long-term SBP residual metric remained significantly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.628 per quartile; 95% CI 1.086–2.441). Conclusions: Our results suggest long-term SBP residual metric to be a better predictor of all-cause mortality in HD patients, which could be used as an additional target for BP management.

A relationship of intradialytic blood pressure variability with vascular access outcomes in patients on hemodialysis.

Vascular access dysfunction is a major cause of morbidity in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD). Thus, identifying risk factors for vascular access failure is important. Patients on HD are routinely exposed to high blood pressure variability (BPV) during HD. However, the impact of intradialytic BPV on vascular access outcomes is unknown. Therefore, we investigated the association of intradialytic BPV with vascular access outcomes in patients on HD. One hundred and thirty patients with ESRD who created vascular access for HD were evaluated. We examined 12 dialysis sessions per patient and recorded BP five times for each session. BPV was assessed using residual standard deviation derived from the linear regression model. The patients were divided into two groups according to a level below or above the median value of intradialytic BPV and compared. The primary outcome was primary unassisted vascular access patency. The median time to loss of primary unassisted patency was significantly longer in low intradialytic BPV group than in high intradialytic BPV group (52 months vs. 21 months, P < 0.001) during the mean follow-up of 3.7 years. After adjustment for other variables, high intradialytic BPV was significantly associated with loss of primary unassisted vascular access patency (hazard ratio, 2.605; 95% confidence interval, 1.462-4.643; P = 0.001). Our study revealed a significant correlation between intradialytic BPV and vascular access patency. Further studies are needed to identify methods for lowering BPV.

Intensive Hemodialysis and Treatment Complications and Tolerability

Hemodialysis (HD) treatment can be difficult to tolerate. Common complications are intradialytic hypotension (IDH) and long time to recovery after an HD session. IDH, as defined by nadir systolic blood pressure <90mmHg and intradialytic decline > 30mmHg, occurs in almost 8% of HD sessions. IDH may be caused by aggressive ultrafiltration in response to interdialytic weight gain, can lead to myocardial stunning and cardiac arrhythmias, and is associated with increased risk for death. Long recovery time after a treatment session is also common. In DOPPS (Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study), recovery time was 2 to 6 hours for 41% of HD patients and longer than 6 hours for 27%; recovery time was linearly associated with increased risks for death and hospitalization. Importantly, both decreases in blood pressure and feeling washed out or drained have been identified by patients as more important outcomes than death or hospitalization. Intensive HD likely reduces the likelihood of IDH. In the Frequent Hemodialysis Network trial, short daily and nocturnal schedules reduced the per-session probability of IDH by 20% and 68%, respectively, relative to 3 sessions per week. Due to lower ultrafiltration volume and/or rate, intensive HD may reduce intradialytic blood pressure variability. In a cross-sectional study, short daily and nocturnal schedules were associated with slower ultrafiltration and less dialysis-induced myocardial stunning than 3 sessions per week. In FREEDOM (Following Rehabilitation, Economics, and Everyday-Dialysis Outcome Measurements), a prospective cohort study of short daily HD, recovery time was reduced after 12 months from 8 hours to 1 hour, according to per-protocol analysis. Recovery time after nocturnal HD may be minutes. In conclusion, intensive HD can improve the tolerability of HD treatment by reducing the risk for IDH and decreasing recovery time after HD. These changes may improve the patient centeredness of end-stage renal disease care.

Association of Intradialytic Blood Pressure Variability With Increased All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients Treated With Long-term Hemodialysis

Blood pressure is known to fluctuate widely during hemodialysis; however, little is known about the association between intradialytic blood pressure variability and outcomes. Retrospective observational cohort. A random sample of 6,393 adult, thrice-weekly, in-center, maintenance hemodialysis patients dialyzing at 1,026 dialysis units within a single large dialysis organization. Intradialytic systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability. This was calculated using a mixed linear effects model. Peridialytic SBP phenomena were defined as starting SBP (regression intercept), systematic change in SBP over the course of dialysis (2 regression slopes), and random intradialytic SBP variability (absolute regression residual). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality. SBPs (n = 631,922) measured during hemodialysis treatments (n = 78,961) during the first 30 days in the study. Outcome data were obtained from the dialysis unit electronic medical record and were considered beginning on day 31. High (ie, greater than the median) versus low SBP variability was associated with greater risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.47). The association between high SBP variability and cardiovascular mortality was even more potent (adjusted HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.01-1.72). A dose-response trend was observed across quartiles of SBP variability for both all-cause (P = 0.001) and cardiovascular (P = 0.04) mortality. Inclusion of patients from a single large dialysis organization, over-representation of African Americans and patients with diabetes and heart failure, and lack of standardized SBP measurements. Greater intradialytic SBP variability is associated independently with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm findings and identify means of reducing SBP variability to facilitate randomized study.

Blood Pressure Variability

A series of articles1–4⇓⇓⇓ published recently in The Lancet and Lancet Neurology raise an interesting issue that has implications for both the clinical management of hypertension and future research in hypertension, particularly in the development and use of different classes of blood pressure (BP)–lowering drugs. These studies, which were led by Peter Rothwell at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, United Kingdom, suggest that, whereas there is undoubted and well-proven benefit in the current practice of reducing mean BP to prevent cardiovascular events, there may be additional benefit in also reducing BP variability (BPV), especially to prevent stroke. The studies suggest, moreover, that different classes of drugs are superior to others in reducing BPV (calcium channel blockers being best and the β-blocker atenolol being worst). However, these articles, by virtue of their sheer volume (≈50 pages of printed text and many pages of supplementary web appendix data), could overwhelm all but the most stoic readers, and misinterpretation of the data could lead to confusion and have an adverse effect on clinical practice. It is important, therefore, to assess the scientific reality and determine how attention to BPV might benefit patients with hypertension. In the first analysis, systolic BPV between visits and maximum BP reached in 4 cohorts of patients with previous transient ischemic attacks were strong predictors for subsequent stroke.1 In treated hypertensive patients in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcome Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm systolic BPV between visits was also a strong predictor of stroke and coronary events independent of mean clinic or ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM). BPV on ABPM was a weaker predictor overall but was related to visit-to-visit variability. Traditional measures of variability, such as SD and coefficient of variation (CV), were used in these analyses, but one of the problems encountered in the …

Comparison of intradialytic blood pressure variability between conventional thrice‐weekly hemodialysis and short daily hemodialysis

Intradialytic blood pressure (BP) variability may be associated with increased mortality. We examined the effect of short daily hemodialysis (SDHD) on intradialytic BP variability relative to conventional thrice-weekly HD (CHD). This is a retrospective cohort study. Subjects were those converted from CHD to SDHD (n=12). All intradialytic BPs were collected on the last month of CHD, and on month 6 of SDHD. Absolute predialysis BP level and intradialytic BP variability were defined as the intercept and average residual terms, respectively, from a mixed-effects linear regression model of time on BP. Dialysis modality was a predictor variable (CHD vs. SDHD). Outcome variables were intradialytic BP variability and hypotension (BP<90/55 mmHg at any time during HD). In addition to a predictor and outcomes, the demographics, estimated dry weight, and ultrafiltration ratio were examined. The median (range) age of the patients was 48 (34-77); all had hypertension, and 4 (33%) had diabetes. By a mixed effects linear regression model, the intradialytic systolic BP variability was 13.2 (quartile range 9.5-14.0) mmHg and 10.0 (8.3-10.9) mmHg for CHD and SDHD, respectively (P<0.006). Intradialytic diastolic BP variability was also significantly reduced (7.7 [6.4-9.2] vs. 6.1 [5.5-6.6] mmHg, P=0.005). Relative to CHD, less hypotension was observed during treatment on SDHD: the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.36 (0.16-0.81; P=0.008). In this retrospective study, SDHD was associated with less intradialytic BP variability and with fewer episodes of hypotension during treatments. Further studies are necessary to generalize these findings.