Hypertension Control During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Cohort Study Among US Veterans.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine whether disruptions in follow-up intervals contributed to hypertension control. BACKGROUND: Disruptions in health care were widespread during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified a cohort of individuals with hypertension in both prepandemic (March 2019-February 2020) and pandemic periods (March 2020-February 2022) in the Veterans Health Administration. First, we calculated follow-up intervals between the last prepandemic and first pandemic blood pressure measurement during a primary care clinic visit, and between measurements in the prepandemic period. Next, we estimated the association between the maintenance of (or achieving) hypertension control and the period using generalized estimating equations. We assessed associations between follow-up interval and control separately for periods. Finally, we evaluated the interaction between period and follow-up length. RESULTS: A total of 1,648,424 individuals met the study inclusion criteria. Among individuals with controlled hypertension, the likelihood of maintaining control was lower during the pandemic versus the prepandemic (relative risk: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.93, 0.93). Longer follow-up intervals were associated with a decreasing likelihood of maintaining controlled hypertension in both periods. Accounting for follow-up intervals, the likelihood of maintaining control was 2% lower during the pandemic versus the prepandemic. For uncontrolled hypertension, the likelihood of gaining control was modestly higher during the pandemic versus the prepandemic (relative risk: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.01). The likelihood of gaining control decreased with follow-up length during the prepandemic but not pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, longer follow-up between measurements contributed to the lower likelihood of maintaining control. Those with uncontrolled hypertension were modestly more likely to gain control in the pandemic.

Blood pressure targets for hemodialysis patients.

The association between blood pressure (BP) and mortality is unique in hemodialysis patients compared with that in the general population. This is because of an altered benefit-risk balance associated with BP reduction in these patients. An adequately designed study comparing BP targets in hemodialysis patients remains to be conducted. The current evidence available to guide dialysis providers regarding treatment strategies for managing hypertension in this population is limited to large observational studies and small randomized controlled trials. In this opinion article, we review these data and discuss the key points regarding BP management for hemodialysis patients. Our aim is to provide a practical opinion regarding BP targets that nephrologists can incorporate into clinical practice, with a focus on moving away from dialysis unit BPs and focusing on out-of-dialysis unit BPs.

We Hold Antihypertensives Prior To Dialysis.

Hypertension is the most common complication of end-stage renal disease and chronic hemodialysis and yet, only a third of these patients have adequately controlled blood pressures. Pathogenesis of hypertension in this population is complex and multifactorial and therefore poses numerous treatment challenges. Furthermore, it is common practice among nephrologists to withhold antihypertensives prior to a hemodialysis procedure due to concerns for intradialytic hypotension (IDH). Intradialytic hypertension (ID-HTN) is an increasingly recognized phenomenon and although less common than IDH, portends poor cardiovascular prognosis as well as reflects higher hypertension burden in the dialysis population. Withholding antihypertensives prior to dialysis routinely in patients may worsen interdialytic blood pressure control as well as increase the prevalence of euvolemic ID-HTN. It may also increase the risk of cardiac arrhythmias and further compromise hemodynamic stability during dialysis. In such situations, predialysis administration of antihypertensive is appropriate and necessary and drug choice should be based on the patient's comorbidities, pharmacokinetics of the drug and its dialyzability.

Kidney biomarkers and differential diagnosis of patients with cirrhosis and acute kidney injury.

UNLABELLED: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with cirrhosis and associated with significant mortality. The most common etiologies of AKI in this setting are prerenal azotemia (PRA), acute tubular necrosis (ATN), and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). Accurately distinguishing the etiology of AKI is critical, as treatments differ markedly. However, establishing an accurate differential diagnosis is extremely challenging. Urinary biomarkers of kidney injury distinguish structural from functional causes of AKI and may facilitate more accurate and rapid diagnoses. We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis and AKI assessing multiple biomarkers for differential diagnosis of clinically adjudicated AKI. Patients (n = 36) whose creatinine returned to within 25% of their baseline within 48 hours were diagnosed with PRA. In addition, 76 patients with progressive AKI were diagnosed by way of blinded retrospective adjudication. Of these progressors, 39 (53%) patients were diagnosed with ATN, 19 (26%) with PRA, and 16 (22%) with HRS. Median values for neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), interleukin-18 (IL-18), kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), liver-type fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP), and albumin differed between etiologies and were significantly higher in patients adjudicated with ATN. The fractional excretion of sodium (FENa) was lowest in patients with HRS, 0.10%, but did not differ between those with PRA, 0.27%, or ATN, 0.31%, P = 0.54. The likelihood of being diagnosed with ATN increased step-wise with the number of biomarkers above optimal diagnostic cutoffs. CONCLUSION: Urinary biomarkers of kidney injury are elevated in patients with cirrhosis and AKI due to ATN. Incorporating biomarkers into clinical decision making has the potential to more accurately guide treatment by establishing which patients have structural injury underlying their AKI. Further research is required to document biomarkers specific to HRS.

Renalase in hypertension and kidney disease.

Renalase, a recently discovered flavoprotein, which is strongly expressed in the kidney and heart, effectively metabolizes catecholamines. It was discovered during the search to identify proteins secreted by the kidney that could help explain the high incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic kidney disease. Recent advances have led to more detailed knowledge of its biology, structure, enzymatic activity, mechanisms of action, associations with human disease states and potential therapeutic value. In this study, we review these advances with a focus on hypertension and kidney disease.

Correlates of Spontaneous Blood Pressure Reduction Following Severe Inpatient Hypertension Development.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypertension (sHTN) is prevalent in 10% of hospitalized patients and treatment guidelines are lacking. As such, patients who develop sHTN might unnecessarily receive antihypertensive medications which could lead to worse outcomes. Our goal was to investigate correlates of spontaneous blood pressure (BP) reduction to help guide future treatment decisions and avoid harm associated with aggressive BP treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adults between 2016 and 2020 who developed sHTN, SBP >180 or DBP >110 mm Hg, after admission. Spontaneous BP reduction was defined as a SBP <160 and a DBP <100 mm Hg achieved within 3 h of sHTN in the absence of antihypertensive therapy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify correlates of spontaneous BP reduction. RESULTS: Of the 12,825 patients who developed sHTN, 44.2% had spontaneous BP reduction. After adjustment, we found that patients most likely to experience a BP drop received steroids before onset of sHTN (Odds ratio [OR]: 1.3 [1.09, 1.56]), had higher potassium levels on admission (OR: 1.2 [1.09, 1.24]) and were more likely to have a history of chronic pulmonary disease (OR: 1.1 [1.01, 1.18]) or cardiac arrythmia (OR: 1.1 [1.01, 1.18]). While numerically different, these differences were not clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that almost half the patients who develop sHTN have spontaneous BP reduction. Conventional clinical and demographic characteristics were not strong predictors of spontaneous BP reduction following sHTN development. More research is needed to confirm our findings and help guide treatment of sHTN.

Treatment of severe metabolic alkalosis in a patient with congestive heart failure.

Metabolic alkalosis, isolated or in combination with another abnormality, is the most common acid-base disorder in patients with congestive heart failure. In most cases, it is a result of diuretic therapy, which causes activation of the renin-angiotensin system, chloride depletion, increased distal sodium delivery, hypokalemia, and increased urine acidification, all of which contribute to bicarbonate retention. In addition, the disease state itself results in neurohormonal activation (renin-angiotensin system, sympathetic nervous system, and endothelin) that further amplifies the tendency toward alkalosis. Treatment of metabolic alkalosis is based on the elimination of generation and maintenance factors, chloride and potassium repletion, enhancement of renal bicarbonate excretion (such as acetazolamide), direct titration of the base excess (hydrochloric acid), or, if accompanied by kidney failure, low-bicarbonate dialysis. In congestive heart failure, appropriate management of circulatory failure and use of an aldosterone antagonist in the diuretic regimen are integral to treatment.

Does kidney disease cause hypertension?

Hypertension complicates most cases of chronic kidney disease. While the prevalence and severity of hypertension increase as glomerular filtration rate falls, hypertension is often observed in patients with structural kidney disease while renal function is normal, in particular those with polycystic kidney disease or proteinuric glomerular diseases. On the other hand, even severe reductions in renal function may not result in hypertension, especially if there is effective control of extracellular fluid volume. Recent clinical and experimental data indicate that proteinuria may mediate sodium retention and hypertension via plasmin-mediated activation of the epithelial sodium channel. Current evidence supports the notion that chronic kidney disease is a cause of chronic hypertension, even in the absence of detectable changes in glomerular filtration rate.

Thrombocytopenia and in-hospital mortality risk among ischemic stroke patients.

BACKGROUND: Thrombocytopenia has been associated with increased mortality in nonstroke conditions. Because its role in acute ischemic stroke is less well understood, we sought to determine whether thrombocytopenia at admission for acute ischemic stroke was associated with in-hospital mortality. METHODS: We used data from a retrospective cohort of stroke patients (1998-2003) at 5 U.S. hospitals. Risk factors considered included conditions that can lead to thrombocytopenia (e.g., liver disease), increase bleeding risk (e.g., hemophilia), medications with antiplatelet effects (e.g., aspirin), and known predictors of mortality (e.g., National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores). Logistic regression modeling evaluated the adjusted association between thrombocytopenia, defined as platelets <100,000/µL, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 1233 acute ischemic stroke patients, thrombocytopenia was present in 2.3% (n = 28). A total of 6.1% (n = 75) of patients died in the hospital. In unadjusted analyses, thrombocytopenia was associated with higher mortality (8/28 [28.6%] v 67/1205 [5.6%]; P < .0001). Thrombocytopenia was also independently associated with in-hospital mortality after adjustment for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score and comorbidities, with an odds ratio of 6.6 (95% confidence interval 2.3-18.6). CONCLUSIONS: Admission thrombocytopenia among patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke predicts in-hospital mortality.

Anemia is associated with poor outcomes in patients with less severe ischemic stroke.

Anemia is a known predictor of in-hospital mortality among patients with such vascular conditions as acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. The role of anemia in patients with acute ischemic stroke is less well understood. We sought to examine the association between anemia at hospital admission and the combined outcome of in-hospital mortality and discharge to hospice in patients with acute ischemic stroke. We evaluated data from a retrospective cohort of consecutive ischemic stroke patients presenting within 48 hours of symptom onset at 5 hospitals between 1998 and 2003. Anemia was defined as an admission hematocrit value of <30%. Less severe stroke was defined as an admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of <10. The outcome was the combined endpoint of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice. Among 1306 patients with stroke, anemia was present on admission in 6.4%, and the combined outcome of death or discharge to hospice was present in 10.1%. Anemia was not associated with outcome in patients with severe stroke (anemia, 17.2% [5 of 29] vs no anemia, 28,4% [98 of 345]; P = .20), but was associated with outcome in patients with less severe stroke (anemia, 13.0% [7 of 54] vs no anemia, 2.5% [22 of 878]; P < .0001). After adjustment for stroke severity, admission anemia was independently associated with outcome in patients with less severe stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 4.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-11.90), but not in patients with more severe strokes (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-2.22). Our data indicate that anemia is associated with in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice in patients with less severe ischemic stroke.

Effect of intravenous antihypertensives on outcomes of severe hypertension in hospitalized patients without acute target organ damage.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of severe inpatient hypertension (HTN) that develops during hospitalization is not informed by guidelines. Intravenous (i.v.) antihypertensives are used to manage severe HTN even in the absence of acute target organ damage; however they may result in unpredictable blood pressure (BP) reduction and cardiovascular events. Our goal was to assess the association between i.v. antihypertensives and clinical outcomes in this population. METHODS: This is a multihospital retrospective study of adults admitted for reasons other than HTN who develop severe HTN during hospitalization without acute target end organ damage. We defined severe HTN as BP elevation of systolic >180 or diastolic >110 mmHg. Treatment was defined as receiving i.v. antihypertensives within 3 h of BP elevation. We used overlap propensity score weighted Cox models to study the association between treatment and clinical outcomes during index hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 224 265 unique, nonintensive care unit hospitalizations, 20 383 (9%) developed severe HTN, of which 5% received i.v. antihypertensives and 79% were untreated within 3 h of severe BP elevation. In the overlap propensity weighted population, patients who received i.v. antihypertensives were more likely to develop myocardial injury (5.9% in treated versus 3.6% in untreated; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.6 [1.13, 2.24]). Treatment was not associated with increased risk of stroke (HR: 0.7 [0.3, 1.62]), acute kidney injury (HR: 0.97 [0.81, 1.17]), or death (HR: 0.86 [0.49, 1.51]). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous antihypertensives were associated with increased risk of myocardial injury in patients who develop severe HTN during hospitalization. These results suggest that i.v. antihypertensives should be used with caution in patients without acute target organ damage.

Evaluation and management of orthostatic hypotension: Limited data, limitless opportunity.

Although orthostatic hypotension is common and can have serious consequences, recommendations about its evaluation and management are based on limited data. Here, the author outlines a systematic approach, noting the areas that pose an opportunity for improvement.

Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension after treatment with sorafenib.

A man in his 70s with a history of fatigue, abdominal pain, and a palpable abdominal mass was found to have a peritoneal desmoid tumour. One year after diagnosis, he was prescribed sorafenib to limit tumour growth. Two months later, he developed dyspnoea on exertion and lower extremity weakness and was reported to have supine hypertension and orthostatic hypotension. On formal autonomic testing, he was noted to have severely impaired sympathetic responses and marked orthostatic hypotension without appropriate chronotropic response. A decision to hold sorafenib was made, and treatment was started with graduated compression stockings, liberal fluid and sodium intake, and midodrine. The patient had a modest and gradual improvement in his symptoms. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of orthostatic hypotension related to sorafenib or any vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.

Excessive Blood Pressure Response to Clonidine in Hospitalized Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: There are limited and nonconcordant data on the rapidity and safety of blood pressure response to clonidine in the setting of asymptomatic severe hypertension. We evaluated the blood pressure response to clonidine in hospitalized patients with asymptomatic severe hypertension. METHODS: We performed a review of hospitalized, noncritically ill patients receiving clonidine within 6 hours of developing asymptomatic severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] >180 or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >110 mm Hg in the absence of acute hypertension-mediated target organ damage). The incidence of mean arterial pressure (MAP) reduction by ≥30% at 4 hours after clonidine was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: We identified 200 relevant patient encounters (median age 63 years, 48.5% women). Median time to clonidine following asymptomatic severe hypertension was 2.8 hours. A total of 20 (10%) patients had ≥30% MAP reduction within 4 hours after clonidine, and 32 (16%) patients had ≥30% reduction in either SBP, DBP, or MAP. Older age, female sex, and preexisting vascular disease were associated with ≥30% MAP reductions (P < 0.05). Only patient sex and clonidine dose of 0.3 mg were significant in multivariable models. There were 14 adverse events observed within 24 hours of administration of clonidine; most (9) were acute kidney injury. There were no ischemic (myocardial, cerebrovascular) events. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial minority of hospitalized patients with asymptomatic severe hypertension experience precipitous blood pressure decline with clonidine, and though blood pressure declines more precipitously in women and those receiving higher doses (0.3 mg specifically), the response to clonidine is generally not predictable on clinical grounds.

Blood pressure response to commonly administered antihypertensives for severe inpatient hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) elevations are commonly treated in hospitalized patients; however, treatment is not guideline directed. Our objective was to assess BP response to commonly prescribed antihypertensives after the development of severe inpatient hypertension (HTN). METHODS: This is a cohort study of adults, excluding intensive care unit patients, within a single healthcare system admitted for reasons other than HTN who developed severe HTN (systolic BP>180 or diastolic BP >110 mmHg at least 1 hour after admission). We identified the most commonly administered antihypertensives given within 6 hours of severe HTN (given to >10% of treated patients). We studied the association of treatment with each antihypertensive vs. no treatment on BP change in the 6 hours following severe HTN development using mixed-effects model after adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among 23,147 patients who developed severe HTN, 9,166 received antihypertensive treatment. The most common antihypertensives given were oral metoprolol (n = 1991), oral amlodipine (n = 1812), oral carvedilol (n = 1116), IV hydralazine (n = 1069) and oral hydralazine (n = 953). In the fully adjusted model, treatment with IV hydralazine led to 13 [-15.9, -10.1], 18 [-22.2, -14] and 11 [-14.1, -8.3] mmHg lower MAP, SBP, and DBP in the 6 hours following severe HTN development compared to no treatment. Treatment with oral hydralazine and oral carvedilol also resulted in significantly lower BPs in the 6 hours following severe HTN development (6 [-9.1, -2.1 and -7 [-9.1, -4.2] lower MAP, respectively) compared to no treatment. Receiving metoprolol and amlodipine did not result in a drop in BP compared to no treatment. CONCLUSION: Among commonly used antihypertensives, IV hydralazine resulted in the most significant drop in BP following severe HTN, while metoprolol and amlodipine did not lower BP. Further research to assess the effect of treatment on clinical outcomes and if needed which antihypertensives to administer are necessary.

Blood pressure management in hemodialysis: what have we learned?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent developments in the field of hypertension in hemodialysis patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the fact that hypertension is the most common complication of end-stage kidney disease, no evidence-based blood pressure (BP) targets exist for hemodialysis patients. There is growing evidence that outcomes are better predicted by out-of-office BP values, such as home or ambulatory BP monitoring. Intradialytic hypertension is associated with increased risk of death or hospitalization, and is probably mediated by volume overload. BP management should focus on volume control: dry weight 'probing' is well tolerated and effective in lowering BP, as are other strategies that minimize expansion of the extracellular fluid volume, such as avoidance of hypernatric dialysate. We discuss each of these issues in our review. SUMMARY: Modest advances in the understanding of hypertension have occurred in the past 2 years. Clinical trials that focus on BP targets and treatment choices are essential to guide future practice.