4.6 Article

Pathogenesis and treatment of kidney disease and hypertension - Home blood pressure monitoring in CKD

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
Volume 45, Issue 6, Pages 994-1001

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.02.015

Keywords

home blood pressure; ambulatory blood pressure; chronic kidney disease (CKD)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Blood pressure (BP) control is the mainstay of stalling the progression of cardiorenal disease, yet the performance characteristics of BPs obtained in the clinic (CBPs) by routine or standardized methods or at home (HBP) in diagnosing hypertension or assessing its control are unknown. Methods: Two hundred thirty-two patients (20% black; 4% women; mean age, 67 years; 35% with diabetes) with chronic kidney disease (CKD) underwent a single 24-hour ambulatory BP (ABP) monitoring (ABPM) and concomitant recording of CBP and HBP for 1 week. Hypertension is defined as systolic BP of 130 mm Hg or greater or diastolic BP of 80 mm Hg or greater on average awake 24-hour ABPM. Results: Average ABP was 135.2 +/- 15.9/75.6 +/- 11.0 mm Hg. Thirty-five percent of patients had isolated systolic hypertension; 3%, isolated diastolic hypertension; 27%, combined systolic and diastolic hypertension; and 35%, normotenslon or well-controlled BID. The prevalence of white-coat effect was estimated as 28% to 30% by means of CBPs and 24% by means of HBPs. Well-controlled BP in the clinic, but poorly controlled BP by means of ABPM, masked hypertension, was seen in 26% to 29% by means of CBPs, but only 13% with HBP monitoring. Conclusion In patients with CKD, HBP is superior in reducing the misclassification of hypertension caused by the white-coat effect and masked hypertension commonly seen with CBPs. An average HBP of approximately 140/80 mm Hg appears to be the best correlate of hypertension defined by means of ABPM. (c) 2005 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available