Patients with Hypertensive Nephropathy and Chronic Kidney Disease Might Not Benefit from Strict Blood Pressure Control

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background/Aims: In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) strict blood pressure (BP) control is reno-protective. However, renal benefits from BP control might depend also on the etiology of CKD. We investigated if maintenance of BP at target is equally effective in subjects with hypertensive nephropathy (HN+) and in those with other nephropathies (HN-). Methods: We evaluated 148 patients with CKD (stages 3-5) in two visits at least 12 months apart. BP was measured both as office BP and 24h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was estimated with CKD-EPI formula. The slope of eGFR variation (ΔeGFR) was calculated as: (eGFR1-eGFR0)/months of follow up. Results: Cohort characteristics were: HN-(n=82) and HN+ (n=66), age (71±9 vs 74±9 years; p=0.09); prevalence of diabetes (57 vs 43%; p=0.19); average follow up (19±7 vs 21±9 months; p=0.3). HN- and HN+ did not differ regarding both baseline eGFR (34±18 vs 35±14 ml/min; p=0.97) and ΔeGFR (0.00±0.53 vs -0.06±0.35 ml/min/month, p=0.52). The proportion of patients with BP at target at both visits was similar in HN- and HN+ (office BP: HN- 18% and HN+ 27%; p=0.21; ABP: HN- 42% and HN+ 43; p=0.96). In patients with office BP at target at both visits HN- showed a significant improvement of ΔeGFR respect to HN+ (HN-: 0.240 ± 0.395 and HN+: -0.140±0.313 ml/min/ month; p=0.026). In patients with office BP not at target HN- and HN+ did not show any difference in ΔeGFR (HN- 0.00±0.47; HN+ -0.030±0.420 ml/min/month; p=0.66). ABP was not associated with differences in ΔeGFR either if it was at target (HN- 0.104±0.383 and HN+ 0.00±0.476 ml/min/month; p=0.42) or not (HN- -0.057±0.503 and HN+ -0.092±0.325 ml/ min/month; p=0.87). Conclusion: In patients with CKD and HN+ maintenance of BP targets recommended by current guidelines is less reno-protective than it is in HN-.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1706-1715
Number of pages10
JournalKidney and Blood Pressure Research
Volume43
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Chronic Renal Insufficiency
Blood Pressure
Hypertensive Nephropathy
Maintenance
Glomerular Filtration Rate
Guidelines
Kidney

Keywords

  • Chronic kidney disease
  • Hypertensive nephropathy
  • Renoprotection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{a6628fabf1184b849f64bd1b58ebb501,
title = "Patients with Hypertensive Nephropathy and Chronic Kidney Disease Might Not Benefit from Strict Blood Pressure Control",
abstract = "Background/Aims: In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) strict blood pressure (BP) control is reno-protective. However, renal benefits from BP control might depend also on the etiology of CKD. We investigated if maintenance of BP at target is equally effective in subjects with hypertensive nephropathy (HN+) and in those with other nephropathies (HN-). Methods: We evaluated 148 patients with CKD (stages 3-5) in two visits at least 12 months apart. BP was measured both as office BP and 24h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was estimated with CKD-EPI formula. The slope of eGFR variation (ΔeGFR) was calculated as: (eGFR1-eGFR0)/months of follow up. Results: Cohort characteristics were: HN-(n=82) and HN+ (n=66), age (71±9 vs 74±9 years; p=0.09); prevalence of diabetes (57 vs 43{\%}; p=0.19); average follow up (19±7 vs 21±9 months; p=0.3). HN- and HN+ did not differ regarding both baseline eGFR (34±18 vs 35±14 ml/min; p=0.97) and ΔeGFR (0.00±0.53 vs -0.06±0.35 ml/min/month, p=0.52). The proportion of patients with BP at target at both visits was similar in HN- and HN+ (office BP: HN- 18{\%} and HN+ 27{\%}; p=0.21; ABP: HN- 42{\%} and HN+ 43; p=0.96). In patients with office BP at target at both visits HN- showed a significant improvement of ΔeGFR respect to HN+ (HN-: 0.240 ± 0.395 and HN+: -0.140±0.313 ml/min/ month; p=0.026). In patients with office BP not at target HN- and HN+ did not show any difference in ΔeGFR (HN- 0.00±0.47; HN+ -0.030±0.420 ml/min/month; p=0.66). ABP was not associated with differences in ΔeGFR either if it was at target (HN- 0.104±0.383 and HN+ 0.00±0.476 ml/min/month; p=0.42) or not (HN- -0.057±0.503 and HN+ -0.092±0.325 ml/ min/month; p=0.87). Conclusion: In patients with CKD and HN+ maintenance of BP targets recommended by current guidelines is less reno-protective than it is in HN-.",
keywords = "Chronic kidney disease, Hypertensive nephropathy, Renoprotection",
author = "Simone Vettoretti and Lara Caldiroli and Francesca Zanoni and Valeria Azzini and Anna Villarini and Roberto Meazza and Piergiorgio Messa",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1159/000495388",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "1706--1715",
journal = "Kidney and Blood Pressure Research",
issn = "1420-4096",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patients with Hypertensive Nephropathy and Chronic Kidney Disease Might Not Benefit from Strict Blood Pressure Control

AU - Vettoretti, Simone

AU - Caldiroli, Lara

AU - Zanoni, Francesca

AU - Azzini, Valeria

AU - Villarini, Anna

AU - Meazza, Roberto

AU - Messa, Piergiorgio

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Background/Aims: In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) strict blood pressure (BP) control is reno-protective. However, renal benefits from BP control might depend also on the etiology of CKD. We investigated if maintenance of BP at target is equally effective in subjects with hypertensive nephropathy (HN+) and in those with other nephropathies (HN-). Methods: We evaluated 148 patients with CKD (stages 3-5) in two visits at least 12 months apart. BP was measured both as office BP and 24h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was estimated with CKD-EPI formula. The slope of eGFR variation (ΔeGFR) was calculated as: (eGFR1-eGFR0)/months of follow up. Results: Cohort characteristics were: HN-(n=82) and HN+ (n=66), age (71±9 vs 74±9 years; p=0.09); prevalence of diabetes (57 vs 43%; p=0.19); average follow up (19±7 vs 21±9 months; p=0.3). HN- and HN+ did not differ regarding both baseline eGFR (34±18 vs 35±14 ml/min; p=0.97) and ΔeGFR (0.00±0.53 vs -0.06±0.35 ml/min/month, p=0.52). The proportion of patients with BP at target at both visits was similar in HN- and HN+ (office BP: HN- 18% and HN+ 27%; p=0.21; ABP: HN- 42% and HN+ 43; p=0.96). In patients with office BP at target at both visits HN- showed a significant improvement of ΔeGFR respect to HN+ (HN-: 0.240 ± 0.395 and HN+: -0.140±0.313 ml/min/ month; p=0.026). In patients with office BP not at target HN- and HN+ did not show any difference in ΔeGFR (HN- 0.00±0.47; HN+ -0.030±0.420 ml/min/month; p=0.66). ABP was not associated with differences in ΔeGFR either if it was at target (HN- 0.104±0.383 and HN+ 0.00±0.476 ml/min/month; p=0.42) or not (HN- -0.057±0.503 and HN+ -0.092±0.325 ml/ min/month; p=0.87). Conclusion: In patients with CKD and HN+ maintenance of BP targets recommended by current guidelines is less reno-protective than it is in HN-.

AB - Background/Aims: In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) strict blood pressure (BP) control is reno-protective. However, renal benefits from BP control might depend also on the etiology of CKD. We investigated if maintenance of BP at target is equally effective in subjects with hypertensive nephropathy (HN+) and in those with other nephropathies (HN-). Methods: We evaluated 148 patients with CKD (stages 3-5) in two visits at least 12 months apart. BP was measured both as office BP and 24h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was estimated with CKD-EPI formula. The slope of eGFR variation (ΔeGFR) was calculated as: (eGFR1-eGFR0)/months of follow up. Results: Cohort characteristics were: HN-(n=82) and HN+ (n=66), age (71±9 vs 74±9 years; p=0.09); prevalence of diabetes (57 vs 43%; p=0.19); average follow up (19±7 vs 21±9 months; p=0.3). HN- and HN+ did not differ regarding both baseline eGFR (34±18 vs 35±14 ml/min; p=0.97) and ΔeGFR (0.00±0.53 vs -0.06±0.35 ml/min/month, p=0.52). The proportion of patients with BP at target at both visits was similar in HN- and HN+ (office BP: HN- 18% and HN+ 27%; p=0.21; ABP: HN- 42% and HN+ 43; p=0.96). In patients with office BP at target at both visits HN- showed a significant improvement of ΔeGFR respect to HN+ (HN-: 0.240 ± 0.395 and HN+: -0.140±0.313 ml/min/ month; p=0.026). In patients with office BP not at target HN- and HN+ did not show any difference in ΔeGFR (HN- 0.00±0.47; HN+ -0.030±0.420 ml/min/month; p=0.66). ABP was not associated with differences in ΔeGFR either if it was at target (HN- 0.104±0.383 and HN+ 0.00±0.476 ml/min/month; p=0.42) or not (HN- -0.057±0.503 and HN+ -0.092±0.325 ml/ min/month; p=0.87). Conclusion: In patients with CKD and HN+ maintenance of BP targets recommended by current guidelines is less reno-protective than it is in HN-.

KW - Chronic kidney disease

KW - Hypertensive nephropathy

KW - Renoprotection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057580546&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057580546&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1159/000495388

DO - 10.1159/000495388

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85057580546

VL - 43

SP - 1706

EP - 1715

JO - Kidney and Blood Pressure Research

JF - Kidney and Blood Pressure Research

SN - 1420-4096

IS - 6

ER -