4.7 Article

Prognostic importance of clinic and home blood pressure recordings in patients with chronic kidney disease

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 69, 期 2, 页码 406-411

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ki.5000081

关键词

home blood pressure; clinic blood pressure; chronic kidney disease; end-stage renal disease

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [T32DK062711] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blood pressure (BP) measured only in the clinic substantially misclassifies hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The role of out-of-clinic recordings of BP in predicting end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and death in patients with CKD is unknown. A prospective cohort study was conducted in 217 Veterans with CKD. BP was measured at home and in the clinic by 'routine' and standardized methods. Patients were followed over a median of 3.5 years to assess the end points of total mortality, ESRD or the composite outcome of ESRD or death. Home BP was 147.0+/-21.4/78.3+/-11.6 mmHg and clinic BPs were 155.2+/-25.6/84.7+/-14.2 mmHg by standardized method and 144.5+/-24.2/75.4+/-14.7 mmHg by the 'routine' method. The composite renal end point occurred in 75 patients (34.5%), death in 52 patients (24.0%), and ESRD in 36/178 patients (20.2%). One standard deviation (s.d.) increase in systolic BP increased the risk of renal end point by 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.60) for routine clinic measurement, by 1.69 (95% CI 1.32-2.17) for standardized clinic measurement and by 1.84 (95% CI 1.46-2.32) for home BP recording. One s.d. increase in home systolic BP increased the risk of ESRD by 1.74 (95% CI 1.04-2.93) when adjusted for standardized clinic systolic BP, proteinuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and other risk factors. In patients with CKD, BPs obtained at home are a stronger predictor of ESRD or death compared to BPs obtained in the clinic. Systolic home BP is an independent predictor for ESRD.

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

4.7
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