Abstract
Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (VVBPV) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the general population. Hemodialysis (HD) patients have a poor prognosis due to an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease. Intradialytic hypotension is associated with excess mortality, but whether VVBPV influences mortality is still unclear in HD patients. The present study aimed to investigate the characteristics of VVBPV in these patients. A total of 324 maintenance HD patients, who could be followed for 60 months, were recruited. We used variation independent of the mean (VIM) in pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure (pre-VIM-SBP) as an index of VVBPV. We investigated (1) the reproducibility of pre-VIM-SBP, (2) the relationship between pre-VIM-SBP and background factors, and (3) the association between pre-VIM-SBP and mortality. Pre-VIM-SBP showed significant reproducibility [intraclass correlation, 0.45 (P < 0.001)]. Higher pre-VIM-SBP was associated with less physical activity and worse left ventricular diastolic function. Higher pre-VIM-SBP was associated with a higher rate of cardiovascular deaths independent of other factors. These data suggest that VVBPV in HD patients is reproducible and associated with various background factors. VVBPV is independently correlated with cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio: 1.166, 95% confidence interval: 1.030-1.320, P = 0.015). Further studies are necessary to confirm the mechanism of increased VVBPV and to clarify whether reducing VVBPV will improve the prognosis for HD patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Visit-to-visit blood pressure (BP) variability (VVBPV) is an independent risk factor for mortality in the general population [1, 2]. VVBPV is a robust predictor of stroke and coronary events in patients treated for hypertension and those with a history of transient ischemic attack. These predictions are independent of mean systolic BP (SBP) [3]. Excessive VVBPV is also a significant indicator for deterioration of renal function and proteinuria [4, 5] and carotid artery atherosclerosis [6].
Hemodialysis (HD) patients have a poor prognosis due to an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease [7, 8]. It has been reported that masked hypertension is associated with increased arterial stiffness [9] and intradialytic hypotension is an independent risk factor for mortality in HD patients [10, 11]. Recent studies show VVBPV to be an independent risk factor for total deaths and cardiovascular deaths in HD patients [12,13,14]. However, most studies were limited by small sample sizes or short duration of follow-up [13, 14], and by use of VVBPV data from measurements such as standard deviation (SD) [14] and coefficient of variation (CV) [12, 13], which can be affected by the absolute value of SBP. Moreover, the reproducibility of VVBPV in HD patients is not well studied. Variation independent of the mean (VIM) is a transformation of SD that is not correlated with mean levels [3]. Therefore, as an index of VVBPV, we selected VIM in SBP, which is less affected by the absolute value of SBP [3], and used this statistic to evaluate reproducibility of VIM in SBP. Further, we investigated relationships between VIM in SBP and background factors and those between VIM in SBP and mortality in patients undergoing maintenance HD.
Methods
Study subjects
Subjects were outpatients on maintenance HD at Kadoma Keijinnkai Clinic, Neyagawa Keijinnkai Clinic, or Moriguchi Keijinnkai Clinic in Osaka Prefecture, Japan. Both clinics are affiliated with Moriguchi Keijinkai Hospital, Osaka, Japan. A total of 324 maintenance HD patients who could be followed for 60 months were recruited consecutively from January 2011 to March 2012. The study excluded subjects who received renal transplants. Each patient underwent HD therapy three times a week for 3-4 h at the same time of the day. All participants were enrolled after obtaining written informed consent as required by the ethical committee of Moriguchi Keijinnkai Hospital.
Background factors
At the start of this study, we collected information for the target study population including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), performance status (PS), duration of HD, smoking history, primary disease (diabetic or not), history of cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and selected medications. BMI was calculated using BMI = {[post-dialysis value of body weight (kg)]/[height (m)]2} × 100. PS reflects patients’ daily living capabilities using a scale developed by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). ECOG scores are defined as follows: 0—patient is fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; 1—patient is restricted from physically strenuous activity, but is ambulatory and able to carry out light or sedentary work; 2—patient is ambulatory and capable of all self-care, but is unable to carry out any work activities that take more than 50% of waking hours; 3—patient is capable of only limited self-care, is confined to bed or chair for more than 50% of waking hours; 4—patient is completely disabled, cannot carry out any self-care, and is totally confined to bed or chair; and 5—patient is deceased) [15].
Information also included dialysis-related data, such as the percentage of body weight gain (%BW) and KT/V. The %BW was calculated using; %BW = (interdialytic weight gain/dry weight) × 100. Kt/V was calculated on the first dialysis day of the week using the formula of Daugirdas [16]: Kt/V = −Ln [post-dialysis value of blood urea nitrogen (BUN)/pre-dialysis value of BUN − 0.008 × dialysis time + (4 − 3.5 × post-dialysis value of BUN/pre-dialysis value of BUN) × (amount of drainage/post-dialysis body weight)]. Post-dialysis values for cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) were obtained on the first dialysis day of the week.
BP measurements and definitions of BP variability
Evaluation of risk should consider SBP rather than diastolic BP (DBP) [17]. Benefits of treating high SBP are established, especially in older subjects [18, 19]. VVBPV for SBP but not for DBP is associated with mortality [1, 2]. Therefore, we selected SBP instead of DBP for evaluation of VVBPV. SBP at the start (pre-dialysis) and end (post-dialysis) as well as during each HD session were measured in a supine position by trained HD nurses using validated oscillometric BP monitor equipped HD machines. The minimum and average number of BP readings were 2 and 4.5, respectively. During a series of 12 consecutive visits from the beginning of the observation period, seven kinds of SBP values were estimated. The first was VIM for pre-dialysis SBP (pre-VIM-SBP) and the second was VIM for post-dialysis SBP (post-VIM-SBP).
VIM-SBP is a transformation of the standard derivation (SD) that is uncorrelated with mean BP and is calculated as (2): VIM-SBP = (k × SD-SBP)/(Mean-SBP)power X, where power X is approximated using the curve of mean values on the horizontal axis plotted against SD on the vertical axis, and k = Mean (Mean-SBP)power X.
The third estimate was the maximum of 12 values of differences between the highest and lowest SBP values during dialysis (i.e., the maximum Δ SBP). The fourth estimate was the average of 12 values of Δ SBP (average Δ SBP). The fifth was the average of 12 values of the percentage of Δ SBP (percentage of Δ SBP = Δ SBP × 100/the highest SBP). The sixth was the minimum of 12 values of the lowest SBP during dialysis (minimum of the lowest SBP). The seventh was the average of 12 values of the lowest SBP during dialysis (average of the lowest SBP).
Subjects were divided into two groups (higher and lower groups) according to the median of SBP values. Subjects groups with lowest BP values were divided into two subgroups depending on whether median SBP was lower than 110 mmHg. This cutoff reflects a previous report that intradialytic hypotension was an independent risk factor for mortality in HD patients with values 110 mmHg [10].
Blood examinations
Blood samples were taken with patients in a supine position on a bed after at least 15 min of rest on the first dialysis day of the week. Pre-dialysis values of hemoglobin (Hb), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglyceride (TG), albumin-corrected calcium (Ca), inorganic phosphorus (IP), intact-parathyroid hormone (intact-PTH), creatinine (Cre), uric acid (UA), C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin (Alb), and glycoalbumin (GA), and post-dialysis values of human atrial natriuretic peptide (hANP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) were measured by conventional methods at an external testing laboratory (Kishimoto, Inc., Tomakomai City, Japan).
Physiological function tests
Echocardiography
Echocardiography was performed on a non-dialysis day using a Vivid S6 System (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA), and cardiac functions, including left ventricular mass index (LVMI), a marker of cardiac hypertrophy [20]; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a marker of left ventricular contractile activity; and E over A (E/A) and deceleration time (Dec-T), markers of left ventricular diastolic function [21], were recorded.
Brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV)
The ankle-brachial index (ABI) and baPWV values (higher values and average values) were measured on a non-dialysis day using a volume-plethysmographic apparatus PWV/ABI (Omron Healthcare Co., Ltd, Kyoto, Japan) following previously described methods [22]. BaPWV cannot be estimated properly when ABI is less than 0.9 because arterial occlusion retards baPWV [23, 24]. Therefore, patients with ABI < 0.9 were excluded from this analysis.
Study protocols
We determined each SBP parameter (pre-VIM-SBP, post-VIM-SBP, maximum Δ SBP, average Δ SBP, percentage of Δ SBP, minimum of the lowest SBP, and average of the lowest SBP) at the start of the study and 6 months after start of the study and assessed reproducibility of these measures by calculating intraclass correlations (ICC) for each patient.
Relationships between each SBP parameter including VIM in SBP (the pre-VIM-SBP and the post-VIM-SBP) and background factors were examined. Subjects were followed until death from any cause or for 60 months. We also examined cardiovascular deaths and non-cardiovascular deaths. As a detailed analysis of prognosis, the subjects were divided into two groups (higher and lower groups) according to the values of each SBP parameter, and we compared total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality between the two groups of each kind of SBP parameter. Finally, we examined the association between VIM in SBP (the pre-VIM-SBP and the post-VIM-SBP) and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality.
Statistical analysis
Parametric variables and nonparametric continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD or median with interquartile ranges (twenty fifth and seventy fifth percentiles), respectively. Categorical variables are presented as the number of patients. Power X was modeled as SD = a × meanx and was derived by nonlinear regression analysis as implemented in the PROC NLIN procedure of the SAS package (SAS Inc Cary, NC, USA). Reproducibility analyses were performed to determine ICC. An ICC reflects the proportion of variance in a measurement that is due to differences among subjects. An ICC ≥ 0.75 was considered indicative of excellent reproducibility, an ICC of 0.4 ≤ ICC < 0.75 was considered indicative of fair reproducibility, and an ICC of ICC < 0.4 was considered indicative of poor reproducibility [25, 26].
We calculated the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between each kind of SBP parameter and background factors, blood data and physiological function data. Multiple regression analyses were done by using factors that showed significant correlation with each SBP parameter as independent variables. Kaplan–Meier plots and log-rank tests were also used to compare all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality between the two groups (higher versus lower median SBP) for pre-VIM-SBP and post-VIM-SBP. Background factors contributing to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality were analyzed using univariate Cox proportional hazard regression. In addition, we constructed multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular mortality using factors that showed a significant correlation as covariates with mortality. The level of significance was defined as P < 0.05. All analyses, except the determination of Power X, were performed using Bell Curve for Excel (Social Survey Research Information Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan).
Results
Characteristics of the study subjects
Table 1 details baseline characteristics of study subjects and includes each SBP parameter, blood data, and physiological function data. The number of patients with measurements of ABI and baPWV was limited to 158. In addition, 28 patients showed ABI of <0.9. As a result, a total of 130 patients are reflected in the analysis of baPWV.
Reproducibility of VIM in SBP and other SBP parameters
Table 2 provides reproducibility estimates for SBP parameters. All parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Maximum Δ SBP showed significant but poor reproducibility and other SBP parameters showed significant and fair reproducibility.
Relationships between each kind of SBP parameter and background factors
The pre-VIM-SBP estimates showed significant positive relationships with PS, primary disease [diabetes mellitus (DM)], and Dec-T values, and significant negative relationships with Ca, Cre, and Alb levels (Table 3). Multiple regression analyses identified PS and Dec-T as significant predictors of higher pre-VIM-SBP (Table 4). Post-VIM-SBP showed significant positive relationships with age, PS, primary disease (DM), duration of HD therapy, average %BW, hANP, and baPWV levels, and significant negative relationships with Alb levels (Table 3). Multiple regression analyses identified PS and primary disease (DM) as significant predictors of higher post-VIM-SBP (Table 4). Maximum Δ SBP showed significant positive relationships with PS, duration of HD therapy, average %BW, Kt/V, CTR, LDL-C, and baPWV levels, and significant negative relationships with medication [calcium channel blocker (CCB)] (Table 3). Multiple regression analyses identified PS, average %BW, and LDL-C as significant predictors of higher maximum Δ SBP, and medication (CCB) as a significant predictor of lower maximum Δ SBP (Table 4). Average Δ SBP showed significant positive relationships with PS, primary disease (DM), duration of HD therapy, average %BW, Kt/V, and LVEF levels, and significant negative relationships with gender (male) and medication (CCB) (Table 3). Multiple regression analyses identified PS, primary disease (DM), and average %BW as significant predictors of higher average Δ SBP, and gender (male) as a significant predictor of lower average Δ SBP (Table 4). The percentage of Δ SBP showed significant positive relationships with age, PS, primary disease (DM), duration of HD therapy, average %BW, Kt/V, CTR, Hb, and LVEF levels and significant negative relationships with gender (male), medications (CCB), BNP, and LVMI levels (Table 3). Multiple regression analyses identified PS, primary disease (DM), average %BW, and Hb as significant predictors of higher percentage of Δ SBP and gender (male), medications (CCB), and BNP as significant predictors of lower percentage of Δ SBP (Table 4). The minimum of the lowest SBP showed significant positive relationships with gender (male), smoking history, medications [renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RAS-I)], medications (CCB), BNP, and LVMI levels and significant negative relationships with age, PS, duration of HD therapy, average %BW, Kt/V, CTR, Hb, TG, and CRP levels (Table 3). Multiple regression analyses identified gender (male), medications (CCB), and BNP as significant predictors of higher minimum of the lowest SBP, and age, PS, average %BW, Hb, TG, and CRP as significant predictors of lower minimum of the lowest SBP (Table 4). The average of the lowest SBP showed significant positive relationships with gender (male), smoking history, medications (RAS-I and CCB), HDL-C, BNP, and LVMI levels, and significant negative relationships with age, PS, duration of HD therapy, average %BW, Kt/V, CTR, Hb, and TG levels (Table 3). Multiple regression analyses identified gender (male), medications (CCB), HDL-C, BNP, and LVMI as significant predictors of higher average of the lowest SBP, and average %BW and Hb as significant predictors of lower average of the lowest SBP (Table 4).
Association between VIM in SBP and prognosis
During the 60-month follow-up period, 130 deaths (40.2%) were recorded, including 88 cardiovascular deaths (27.0%), two due to acute myocardial infarction, 27 due to congestive heart failure, six due to lethal arrhythmia, seven due to cerebral hemorrhage, three to stroke, and 43 sudden unexpected deaths. Forty-two non-cardiovascular deaths (13.0%) were recorded, 17 due to infectious diseases, six to cachexia, 12 to cancer, five to suffocation, and two to liver failure. One-year survival rate was 98.1%, 2-year survival rate 86.7%, 3-year survival rate 77.4%, 4-year survival rate 70.0%, and 5-year survival rate 60.0%.
The group with higher pre-VIM-SBP (≥12.5, n = 160) had higher total and cardiovascular death rates than the lower group (<12.5, n = 164), and the group with higher post-VIM-SBP (≥12.3, n = 164) had higher total and non-cardiovascular death rates than the lower group (<12.3, n = 160) (Table 5, Fig. 1). In contrast, total, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death were not significantly different between the higher and lower groups based on maximum Δ SBP (≥60 mmHg, n = 164 vs <60 mmHg, n = 160), average Δ SBP (≥33.3 mmHg, n = 160 vs <33.3 mmHg, n = 164), percentage of Δ SBP (≥20.6%, n = 160 vs <20.6, n = 164), minimum of the lowest SBP (≥106 mmHg, n = 175 vs <106 mmHg, n = 149 and ≥110 mmHg, n = 117 vs <110 mmHg, n = 207), and average of the lowest SBP (≥125 mmHg, n = 162 vs <125 mmHg, n = 162 and ≥110 mmHg, n = 262 vs <110 mmHg, n = 62) (Table 5).
Univariate Cox regression analyses demonstrated that age, PS, primary disease (DM), history of cardiovascular diseases, CTR, hANP, BNP, LVMI, and baPWV (average values) levels were significantly and positively correlated, and BMI, medications (RAS-I), medications (CCB), IP, Cre, Alb, and LVEF were significantly and negatively correlated with total death (Table 6). Age, gender (male), PS, primary disease (DM), history of cardiovascular diseases, CTR, hANP, BNP, LVMI, and baPWV (average values) levels were significantly and positively correlated, and BMI, medications (RAS-I), medications (CCB), Kt/V, IP, Cre, Alb, and LVEF were significantly and negatively correlated with cardiovascular death (Table 6). In addition, age, PS, primary disease (DM), duration of HD therapy, CTR, hANP, and baPWV (average values) levels were significantly and positively correlated, and BMI, smoking history, medications (RAS-I and CCB), Cre, and Alb were significantly and negatively correlated with non-cardiovascular death (Table 6). Results of multivariate Cox regression analyses for total, cardiovascular, or non-cardiovascular mortality are shown in Table 7. Factors with significant correlation to total death by univariate analyses (Table 6), in addition to pre-VIM-SBP, were used as covariates in model 1. Similarly, factors correlated with cardiovascular death and pre-VIM-SBP, factors correlated with total death and post VIM-SBP, and factors correlated with non-cardiovascular death and post-VIM-SBP were used as covariates in models 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Pre-VIM-SBP was not significantly correlated with total death (model 1), but did show a significant positive relationship with cardiovascular death (HR: 1.166, 95% CI: 1.030–1.320, P = 0.015) (model 2). Post-VIM-SBP did not show significant relationships with total (model 3) or non-cardiovascular death (model 4).
Discussion
The present study demonstrates three major findings regarding VIM in SBP as defined by VVBPV estimates from maintenance of HD patients. First, each SBP parameter including VIM in SBP is reproducible. Second, VIM in SBP is correlated with several background factors. Finally, pre-VIM-SBP is independently associated with cardiovascular mortality. These data suggest that pre-VIM-SBP could be used as a predictive marker for cardiovascular events for HD patients.
Reproducibility of VIM in SBP and other SBP parameters
Howard et al. demonstrated the reproducibility of VVBPV in patients who had suffered a TIA or minor ischemic stroke [27]. In contrast, VVBPV in HD patients may be influenced by many factors, such as interdialytic weight gain, anemia, nutritional condition, medications, and modulation of autonomic function. VVBPV in HD patients might thus be expected to show low reproducibility. The present study is the first attempt to estimate the reproducibility of several SBP parameters, including VIM in HD patients. Interestingly, all SBP parameters examined revealed significant reproducibility. Both pre-VIM-SBP and post-VIM-SBP reproducibility tended to be less than average ΔSBP, percentage of ΔSBP, minimum of the lowest SBP, and average of the lowest SBP, but greater than maximum ΔSBP (Table 2). The mechanism behind differences in reproducibility among SBP parameters remains unknown; however, our study shows, for the first time, significant reproducibility of VVBPV in HD patients.
Relationships between SBP parameters and background factors
Previous studies report a correlation between Δ SBP or the lowest SBP and background factors [10, 11]. Similarly, in our study, SBP parameters were correlated with different background factors (Tables 3 and 4). However, to our knowledge, this report is the first to show that VIM in SBP correlates with background factors in HD patients. PS, a marker of physical activity, and Dec-T, a marker of left ventricular diastolic function, showed significant positive relationships with pre-VIM-SBP, independent of other factors. Less physical activity and worse left ventricular diastolic function are independently associated with increased pre-VIM-SBP. In contrast, PS and primary disease (DM) showed significant positive relationships with post-VIM-SBP, independent of other factors. Accordingly, less physical activity and presence of DM may be independently associated with elevated post-VIM-SBP.
The reason for differences in background factor relationships between pre-VIM-SBP and post-VIM-SBP is unclear, but a possibility is that pre-VIM-SBP is influenced by cardiac function, while post-VIM-SBP is influenced by changes due to DM. However, this possibility should be investigated in detail. Past reports showed that older age is associated with higher VVBPV in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) [1, 28]. Di Iorio et al. reported that, in HD patients, this association was not seen consistently [29]. In this study, pre-VIM-SBP did not correlate with age. This discrepancy could be explained by the inclination that older patients with CKD are more likely to die than to initiate dialysis [30]. Webb et al. reported that VVBPV was higher in patients administered RAS-Is and β-blockers and lower when administered CCBs in a random-effects meta-analysis [31]. Di Iorio et al. reported that VVBPV was higher in patients with CKD using RAS-Is and CCBs [28]. In our study, VIM in SBP did not correlate with treatment with antihypertensive drugs, consistent with prior studies of HD patients [12]. This lack of association between classes of antihypertensive medications and VVBPV might be due to the numbers of patients receiving antihypertensive drugs (76.9% were taking RAS-Is and 65.1% were taking CCBs). Statistical group comparisons between patients with and without antihypertensive drug therapy are less robust because of the large difference in population sizes. This issue should also be addressed by further investigations.
Association between each kind of SBP parameter and prognosis
Several studies indicate that VVBPV is associated with total deaths in HD patients [12, 13, 14]. In these studies, VVBPV was assessed using SD [14] or CV [12, 13] of pre-dialysis SBP. CV is influenced by the absolute value of SBP [3]. To determine the prognostic value of variability, independently from the absolute value of SBP, a measure of variability that is uncorrelated with this statistic is needed. VIM is a transformation of SD that is defined to be uncorrelated with the mean [3]. As an index of VVBPV, we selected VIM in SBP, which is less influenced by the absolute value of SBP.
In our study, VIM in SBP (both pre-VIM-SBP and post-VIM-SBP) was associated with total deaths in HD patients (Table 5 and Fig. 1). Further, pre-VIM-SBP was independently associated with cardiovascular deaths (Table 7). Some reports demonstrate that other indices of VVBPV such as CV are associated with cardiovascular events [12, 29, 32]. Selvarajah et al. reported that pre-VIM-SBP is independently associated with all-cause mortality in HD patients [33]. No previous reports demonstrate an association with cardiovascular deaths. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that pre-VIM-SBP is associated with such deaths.
Mechanisms which cause VVBPV to increase in HD patients are not known. Mena et al. demonstrated that disruption of BP homeostasis and large and small artery damage amplify BP fluctuations in response to environmental or central stimuli [34, 35]. Other studies showed that endothelial cell injury was a sign of vascular injury, and it could increase the risk of death due to cardiovascular disease [36,37,38]. A recent study showed that VVBPV was associated with endothelial cell injury in patients with CKD [39]. Higher pre-VIM-SBP may then exacerbate endothelial injury and may be a factor in end-organ damage, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular deaths.
Intriguingly, in the present study, higher post-VIM-SBP is associated with increased non-cardiovascular deaths (Table 5 and Fig. 1), although the association was not independent of other factors. No clear explanation for this finding is available. However, higher post-VIM-SBP was associated with less physical activity and primary disease (DM). Patients with DM have a poor prognosis due to an increased prevalence of not only cardiovascular disease [7, 8] but also non-cardiovascular diseases such as infection [40] and cancer [41]. Both of these latter conditions were important causes of deaths in this study (17 deaths due to infectious diseases and 12 deaths due to cancer). Thus, higher post-VIM-SBP may be associated with increased non-cardiovascular deaths due to the presence of DM.
Prior reports show that Δ SBP [11] and intradialytic hypotension [10] are risk factors for mortality in HD patients. Zager et al. advocated a U-shaped association between post-dialysis SBP and cardiovascular mortality, with increased mortality when SBP was ≥180 mmHg and <110 mmHg [42]. However, in contrast, no SBP parameters other than VIM in SBP showed associations with increased mortality in the present study. VIM in SBP appears to be a better predictor for prognosis in HD patients than other SBP parameters, and thus may be clinically more useful for such patients.
Limitations
Several limitations of the present study warrant mention. First, our sample size was relatively small. Second, we had no information for dosages of antihypertensive drugs, times when medications were taken, and compliance with medication management, all of which may be associated with VVBPV in HD patients [43]. Third, a causal relationship between VIM in SBP and prognosis remains undetermined. Further studies will be required to clarify whether reducing VVBPV will improve prognoses for HD patients.
Conclusion
The present study presents data that VIM in SBP and other SBP parameters during HD therapy are reproducible and associated with various background factors. Also, pre-VIM-SBP is independently correlated with cardiovascular mortality. Pre-VIM-SBP could be used as a predictive marker for cardiovascular events in HD patients. Further studies are necessary to confirm the mechanism for underlying increases in VVBPV and to clarify whether reducing VVBPV improves prognoses for HD patients.
References
Muntner P, Shimbo D, Tonelli M, Reynolds K, Arnett DK, Oparil S. The relationship between visit-to-visit variability in systolic blood pressure and all-cause mortality in the general population: findings from NHANES III, 1988 to 1994. Hypertension. 2011;57:160–6.
Wang J, Shi X, Ma C, Zheng H, Xiao J, Bian H, et al. Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability is a risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2017;35:10–7.
Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O’Brien E, Dobson JE, Dahlof B, et al. Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension. Lancet. 2010;375:895–905.
Yokota K, Fukuda M, Matsui Y, Hoshide S, Shimada K, Kario K. Impact of visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure on deterioration of renal function in patients with non-diabetic chronic kidney disease. Hypertens Res. 2013;36:151–7.
Kawai T, Ohishi M, Kamide K, Onishi M, Takeya Y, Tatara Y, et al. The impact of visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure on renal function. Hypertens Res. 2012;35:239–43.
Nagai M, Hoshide S, Ishikawa J, Shimada K, Kario K. Visit-to-visit blood pressure variations: new independent determinants for carotid artery measures in the elderly at high risk of cardiovascular disease. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2011;5:184–92.
Levey AS, Beto JA, Coronado BE, Eknoyan G, Foley RN, Kasiske BL, et al. Controlling the epidemic of cardiovascular disease in chronic renal disease: what do we know? What do we need to learn? Where do we go from here? National Kidney Foundation Task Force on Cardiovascular Disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32:853–906.
Iseki K. Role of chronic kidney disease in cardiovascular disease: are we different from others? Clin Exp Nephrol. 2011;15:450–5.
Liu W, Wang L, Sun Z, Li X, Zhou J, Gao C, et al. Masked uncontrolled hypertension in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Hypertens Res. 2017;40:819–24.
Shoji T, Tsubakihara Y, Fujii M, Imai E. Hemodialysis-associated hypotension as an independent risk factor for two-year mortality in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2004;66:1212–20.
Lu J, Zhu M, Liu S, Zhu M, Pang H, Lin X, et al. The relationship between survival rate and intradialytic blood pressure changes in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Ren Fail. 2017;39:417–22.
Chang TI, Flythe JE, Brunelli SM, Muntner P, Greene T, Cheung AK, et al. Visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability and outcomes in hemodialysis. J Hum Hypertens. 2014;28:18–24.
Tozawa M, Iseki K, Yoshi S, Fukiyama K. Blood pressure variability as an adverse prognostic risk factor in end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999;14:1976–81.
Brunelli SM, Thadhani RI, Lynch KE, Ankers ED, Joffe MM, Boston R, et al. Association between long-term blood pressure variability and mortality among incident hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;52:716–26.
Trotti A, Byhardt R, Stetz J, Gwede C, Corn B, Fu K, et al. Common toxicity criteria: version 2.0. an improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment: impact on radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:13–47.
Daugirdas JT. Second generation logarithmic estimates of single-pool variable volume Kt/V: an analysis of error. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1993;4:1205–13.
Benetos A, Thomas F, Bean K, Gautier S, Smulyan H, Guize L. Prognostic value of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in treated hypertensive men: clarification. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:121.
Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group. JAMA. 1991;265:3255–64.
Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhager WH, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet. 1997;350:757–64.
Zoccali C, Benedetto FA, Mallamaci F, Tripepi G, Giacone G, Cataliotti A, et al. Prognostic impact of the indexation of left ventricular mass in patients undergoing dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12:2768–74.
Ommen SR, Nishimura RA. A clinical approach to the assessment of left ventricular diastolic function by Doppler echocardiography: update 2003. Heart. 2003;89(Suppl 3):iii18–23.
Yamashina A, Tomiyama H, Takeda K, Tsuda H, Arai T, Hirose K, et al. Validity, reproducibility, and clinical significance of noninvasive brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity measurement. Hypertens Res. 2002;25:359–64.
Yokoyama H, Shoji T, Kimoto E, Shinohara K, Tanaka S, Koyama H, et al. Pulse wave velocity in lower-limb arteries among diabetic patients with peripheral arterial disease. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2003;10:253–8.
Ishida A, Fujisawa M, Del Saz EG, Okumiya K, Kimura Y, Manuaba IIB, et al. Arterial stiffness, not systolic blood pressure, increases with age in native Papuan populations. Hypertens Res. 2018;41:539–46.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
Kim JY, Kim EJ, Namgung J, Cho BR, Nam CW, Kim YK, et al. Between-visit reproducibility of inter-arm systolic blood pressure differences in treated hypertensive patients: the coconet study. Hypertens Res. 2017;40:483–6.
Howard SC, Rothwell PM. Reproducibility of measures of visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;28:331–40.
Di Iorio B, Pota A, Sirico ML, Torraca S, Di Micco L, Rubino R, et al. Blood pressure variability and outcomes in chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:4404–10.
Di Iorio B, Di Micco L, Torraca S, Sirico ML, Guastaferro P, Chiuchiolo L, et al. Variability of blood pressure in dialysis patients: a new marker of cardiovascular risk. J Nephrol. 2013;26:173–82.
O’Hare AM, Choi AI, Bertenthal D, Bacchetti P, Garg AX, Kaufman JS, et al. Age affects outcomes in chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18:2758–65.
Webb AJ, Fischer U, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Effects of antihypertensive-drug class on interindividual variation in blood pressure and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2010;375:906–15.
Rossignol P, Cridlig J, Lehert P, Kessler M, Zannad F. Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability is a strong predictor of cardiovascular events in hemodialysis: insights from FOSIDIAL. Hypertension. 2012;60:339–46.
Selvarajah V, Pasea L, Ojha S, Wilkinson IB, Tomlinson LA. Pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure-variability is independently associated with all-cause mortality in incident haemodialysis patients. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e86514.
Mena L, Pintos S, Queipo NV, Aizpurua JA, Maestre G, Sulbaran T. A reliable index for the prognostic significance of blood pressure variability. J Hypertens. 2005;23:505–11.
Tabara Y, Matsumoto T, Murase K, Nagashima S, Hirai T, Kosugi S, et al. Seasonal variation in nocturnal home blood pressure fall: the Nagahama study. Hypertens Res. 2018;41:198–208.
Koc M, Richards HB, Bihorac A, Ross EA, Schold JD, Segal MS. Circulating endothelial cells are associated with future vascular events in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2005;67:1078–83.
Amabile N, Guerin AP, Leroyer A, Mallat Z, Nguyen C, Boddaert J, et al. Circulating endothelial microparticles are associated with vascular dysfunction in patients with end-stage renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16:3381–8.
Werner N, Kosiol S, Schiegl T, Ahlers P, Walenta K, Link A, et al. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells and cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:999–1007.
Nakano C, Morimoto S, Nakahigashi M, Kusabe M, Ueda H, Someya K, et al. The relationships between visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and renal and endothelial function in chronic kidney disease. Hypertens Res. 2015;38:193–8.
Carey IM, Critchley JA, DeWilde S, Harris T, Hosking FJ, Cook DG. Risk of infection in type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared with the general population: a matched cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:513–21.
Sasazuki S, Charvat H, Hara A, Wakai K, Nagata C, Nakamura K, et al. Diabetes mellitus and cancer risk: pooled analysis of eight cohort studies in Japan. Cancer Sci. 2013;104:1499–507.
Zager PG, Nikolic J, Brown RH, Campbell MA, Hunt WC, Peterson D, et al. “U” curve association of blood pressure and mortality in hemodialysis patients. Medical Directors of Dialysis Clinic, Inc. Kidney Int. 1998;54:561–9.
Muntner P, Levitan EB, Joyce C, Holt E, Mann D, Oparil S, et al. Association between antihypertensive medication adherence and visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013;15:112–7.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by grants from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (16K09657 to SM).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Amari, Y., Morimoto, S., Iida, T. et al. Characteristics of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability in hemodialysis patients. Hypertens Res 42, 1036–1048 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-019-0231-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-019-0231-9
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Intra-dialytic blood pressure variability is a greater predictor of cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients
BMC Nephrology (2023)
-
Postdialysis blood pressure is a better predictor of mortality than predialysis blood pressure in Japanese hemodialysis patients: the Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study
Hypertension Research (2020)
-
Ambulatory blood pressure profile and blood pressure variability in peritoneal dialysis compared with hemodialysis and chronic kidney disease patients
Hypertension Research (2020)