Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018 Mar 7;13(3):422-428. doi: 10.2215/CJN.09630917. Epub 2018 Feb 13.

Twenty-Four-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure versus Clinic Blood Pressure Measurements and Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Children with CKD.

Author information

1
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, elaine.ku@ucsf.edu.
2
Division of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, and.
3
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California.
4
Division of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri.
5
Division of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and.
6
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

and objectives Our objective was to determine whether clinic BPs (taken at either a single visit or two sequential visits) are inferior to ambulatory BPs in their ability to discriminate risk of adverse outcomes in children with CKD.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:

We included 513 participants of the CKD in Children Study who had clinic BPs and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring performed during similar timeframes. Predictors of interest were systolic BPs taken at a single visit or two repeated visits within a 1-year period compared with mean wake and sleep systolic ambulatory BPs. Outcomes were left ventricular hypertrophy and ESKD. We determined the ability for each BP parameter to provide risk discrimination using c statistics.

RESULTS:

During mean follow-up of 3.5 years, 123 participants developed ESKD. In cross-sectional unadjusted analysis, every 0.1 increase in systolic BP index was associated with a 2.0 times higher odds of left ventricular hypertrophy (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.8) by clinic BPs versus 1.8 times higher odds (95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.4) by ambulatory wake BP. The c statistic was highest for clinic BP (c=0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.73) but similar to ambulatory wake BP (c=0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.71) for the discrimination of left ventricular hypertrophy. In longitudinal unadjusted analysis, every 0.1 increase in systolic BP index was associated with a higher risk of ESKD using repeated clinic (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 1.8) versus ambulatory wake BP (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.0). Unadjusted c statistics were the same for wake (c=0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.67) and clinic systolic BPs (c=0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.66) for discriminating risk of ESKD.

CONCLUSIONS:

Clinic BPs taken in a protocol-driven setting are not consistently inferior to ambulatory BP in the discrimination of BP-related adverse outcomes in children with CKD.

KEYWORDS:

Blood Pressure Determination; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Systole; blood pressure; hypertension; pediatric nephrology

PMID:
29440119
PMCID:
PMC5967676
[Available on 2019-03-07]
DOI:
10.2215/CJN.09630917

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire
Loading ...
Support Center