4.0 Article

Impact of Blood Pressure on Risk of Graft Failure or Death Among Patients After Kidney Transplantation in a 10-Year Observational Period: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

期刊

ANNALS OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 28, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/AOT.939472

关键词

Kidney Transplantation; Hypertension; Graft Rejection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypertension is a risk factor for graft failure and mortality among kidney transplant recipients. Monitoring blood pressure and adequate treatment contribute to longer survival of the graft and recipient.
Background: Hypertension is a risk factor for graft failure and mortality among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). The aim of the study was to examine blood pressure (BP) as a factor that contributes to graft failure or death during a 10-year observation period. Material/Methods: The study group comprised 70 KTRs who were treated according to their clinical state. Data were collected at 1 month and 1 year after transplantation and included office and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) BP values, eGFR, proteinuria, and BMI. During the observation period, 6 patients died, and 10 lost the graft, but not during the first year. Results: Office and ABPM BP values were within normal ranges and did not diller from each other. eGRF and BMI were higher at 1 year compared to 1 month after transplantation, and proteinuria decreased. Among those who died, DBP was lower compared to those of survivors with graft failure. Proteinuria and donor age were positively correlated with BP. Conclusions: Monitoring of BP and adequate treatment of hypertension resulting in BP values within normal values among KTRs contribute to longer survival of the graft and recipient. Older donor age and proteinuria could predict post-transplant hypertension. Low diastolic BP of the recipient could increase the risk of death among KTRs. Despite the fact that ABPM is the blood pressure measurement method of choice, appropriate standard office

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据