Gender-Related Differences in the Levels of Ambulatory BP and Intensity of Antihypertensive Treatment in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis.

Prior studies have shown that among patients with chronic kidney disease not yet on dialysis, the faster progression of kidney injury in men than in women is, at least partly, explained by sex differences in ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control. The present study aimed to investigate potential differences in the levels of ambulatory BP and intensity of antihypertensive treatment between men and women with end-stage kidney disease undergoing long-term peritoneal dialysis (PD). In a case-control design, 48 male PD patients were matched for age and heart failure status with 48 female patients in a 1:1 ratio. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed with an oscillometric device, the Mobil-O-Graph (IEM, Stolberg, Germany). The BP-lowering medications actually taken by the patients were prospectively recorded. No gender-related differences were observed in 24 h systolic BP (129.0 ± 17.9 vs. 128.5 ± 17.6 mmHg, p = 0.890). In contrast, 24 h diastolic BP was higher in men than in women (81.5 ± 12.1 vs. 76.8 ± 10.3 mmHg, p = 0.042). As compared with women, men were being treated with a higher average number of antihypertensive medications daily (2.4 ± 1.1 vs. 1.9 ± 1.1, p = 0.019) and were more commonly receiving calcium-channel-blockers (70.8% vs. 43.8%, p = 0.007) and ß-blockers (85.4% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.031). In conclusion, the present study shows that among PD patients, the levels of ambulatory BP and intensity of antihypertensive treatment are higher in men than in women. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore whether these gender-related differences in the severity of hypertension are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes for male patients undergoing PD.

Prevalence of Apparent Treatment-Resistant Hypertension in ESKD Patients Receiving Peritoneal Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) is defined as failure to achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control despite taking ≥3 antihypertensive medications from different categories or when taking ≥4 antihypertensives regardless of BP levels. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we estimated the prevalence of aTRH in 140 patients receiving long-term peritoneal dialysis (PD) in four centers of Northern Greece, using the "gold-standard" method of ambulatory BP monitoring for the assessment of BP control status. The presence of subclinical overhydration was evaluated with the method of bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). RESULTS: Incorporating the diagnostic threshold of 130/80 mmHg for 24-hour ambulatory BP, the prevalence of aTRH in the overall study population was 30%. Compared to patients without aTRH, those with aTRH tended to be older in age, had higher PD vintage, had higher dialysate-to-plasma creatinine ratio, had more commonly history of diabetes mellitus, and were more commonly current smokers. With respect to the volume status, the overhydration index in BIS was higher in those with versus without aTRH (2.0 ±â€…1.9 L vs. 1.1 ±â€…2.0 L, P < 0.05). The prevalence of volume overload, defined as an overhydration index in BIS > 2.5 L, was also higher in the subgroup of patients with aTRH (38.1% vs. 18.4, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that among patients on PD, the prevalence of aTRH was 30%. However, 38% of PD patients with aTRH had subclinical overhydration in BIS, suggesting that the achievement of adequate volume control may be a therapeutic opportunity to improve the management of hypertension in this high-risk patient population.The present study showed that among patients on PD, the prevalence of aTRH was 30%. However, 38% of PD patients with aTRH had subclinical overhydration in BIS, suggesting that the achievement of adequate volume control may be a therapeutic opportunity to improve the management of hypertension in this high-risk patient population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Trial Number NCT03607747.

Feasibility of non-invasive measurement of central blood pressure and arterial stiffness in shock.

BACKGROUND: Patients in haemodynamic shock are in need for an intensive care treatment. Invasive haemodynamic monitoring is state of the art for these patients. However, evolved, non-invasive blood pressure monitoring devices offer advanced functions like the assessment of central blood pressure and arterial stiffness. We analysed the feasibility of two oscillometric blood pressure devices in patients with shock. METHODS: We performed a monocentre prospective study, enrolling 57 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), due to septic and/or cardiogenic shock. We assessed invasive and non-invasive peripheral and central blood pressure <24 hours and 48 hours after admission on the ICU. Additional haemodynamic parameters such as pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation pressure and augmentation index were obtained through Mobil-o-Graph PWA (IEM) and SphygmoCor XCEL (AtCor Medical). RESULTS: A complete haemodynamic assessment was successful in all patients (48) with the Mobil-o-Graph 24 hours PWA and in 29 patients with the SphygmoCor XCEL (P = .001), when cases of death or device malfunction were excluded. Reasons for failure were severe peripheral artery disease, haemodynamic instability, oedema and agitation. Invasive blood pressure showed a sufficient correlation with both devices; however, large differences between invasive and non-invasive techniques were recorded in Bland-Altmann analysis (P < .05 for all parameters). PWV differed between the two devices. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive peripheral blood pressure measurement remains a rescue technique. However, non-invasive assessment of arterial stiffness and central blood pressure is possible in patients with septic or cardiogenic shock. Further studies are required to assess their clinical significance for patients in shock.

Renovascular Hypertension: Novel Insights.

Renovascular hypertension (RVH) remains among the most prevalent and important, but also potentially reversible, causes of secondary hypertension. The predominant causes of renal artery stenosis (RAS) are atherosclerotic renovascular arterial stenosis (ARAS) and renal fibromuscular dysplasia. This condition can lead to progressive renal injury, cardiovascular complications and 'flash pulmonary edema'. Duplex Doppler ultrasonography, computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography are the most commonly used diagnostic methods. There are three therapeutic options available: medical therapy including renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists, lipid-lowering agents, and antiplatelet therapy, percutaneous angioplasty with or without stent placement and surgical revascularization. Three large trials failed to demonstrate the superiority of renal artery revascularization over pharmaceutical therapy in controlling blood pressure and preserving renal function. For this reason, today revascularization is only recommended for patients with progressive worsening of renal function, recurrent 'flash pulmonary edema' and rapid increase in antihypertensive requirement in patients with previously well-controlled hypertension. However, more properly designed trials are needed in order to identify which patient populations would probably benefit from renal revascularization.

Effect of Nebivolol and Olmesartan on 24-Hour Brachial and Aortic Blood Pressure in the Acute Stage of Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure (BP) in the acute phase of ischemic stroke is associated with heightened risk of early disability and death. However, whether BP-lowering in this setting is beneficial and the exact levels at which BP should be targeted remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of nebivolol, olmesartan, and no-treatment on 24-hour BP in patients with hypertension during the acute poststroke period. METHODS: In a single-blind fashion, 60 patients with acute ischemic stroke and clinic systolic BP (SBP) 160-220 mmHg were randomized to nebivolol (5 mg/day), olmesartan (20 mg/day), or no-treatment between Day 4 and Day 7 of stroke onset. BP-lowering efficacy was assessed through 24-hour BP monitoring using the Mobil-O-Graph device (IEM, Germany). RESULTS: Between baseline and Day 7, significant reductions in 24-hour brachial SBP were noted with nebivolol and olmesartan, but not with no-treatment. Change from baseline (CFB) in 24-hour brachial SBP was not different between nebivolol and olmesartan groups (between-group difference: -3.4 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI): -11.2, 4.3), whereas nebivolol was superior to no-treatment in lowering 24-hour brachial SBP (between-group difference: -7.8 mmHg; 95% CI: -7.8 mmHg; 95% CI: -15.6, -0.1). Similarly, nebivolol and olmesartan equally lowered 24-hour aortic SBP (between-group difference: -1.9 mmHg; 95% CI: -10.1, 6.2). Nebivolol and olmesartan provoked similar reductions in 24-hour heart rate-adjusted augmentation index and pulse wave velocity. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that during the acute phase of ischemic stroke, nebivolol is equally effective with olmesartan in improving 24-hour aortic pressure and arterial stiffness indices. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT03655964.

Antihypertensive therapy in acute ischemic stroke: where do we stand?

Despite the proven benefits of strict blood pressure (BP) control on primary and secondary prevention of stroke, management of acute hypertensive response in the early post-stroke period is surrounded by substantial controversy. Observational studies showed that raised BP on ischemic stroke onset is prognostically associated with excess risk for early adverse events and mortality. By contrast, randomized controlled trials and recent meta-analyses showed that although antihypertensive therapy effectively controls elevated BP in the acute stage of ischemic stroke, this BP-lowering effect is not translated into improvement in the risk of death or dependency. On this basis, acute and aggressive BP responses within 24 h of stroke onset should be avoided and antihypertensive therapy is recommended only for patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke and BP > 220/120 mmHg or those with BP > 185/110 mmHg who are eligible for therapy with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. By contrast, recent clinical trials showed that intensive BP lowering to levels < 140 mmHg for systolic BP is safe and lowers the risk of hematoma expansion in patients with acute intra-cerebral hemorrhage and this BP target is recommended by current international guidelines. Herein, we provide an overview of randomized trials and recent meta-analyses on the management of hypertension during the acute stage of ischemic stroke. We discuss several areas of uncertainty and conclude with perspectives for future research.

Diabetes and lipid metabolism.

The authors review the association between diabetes mellitus (DM) and aberrations of lipid metabolism related to DM, diabetic dyslipidemia (DD). DM is considered as a major health burden worldwide and one of the most important modifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. This applies to both the developed and the developing countries, especially the latter. While patients with type 1 DM, 10% of all DM cases, usually do not have dyslipidemia, DD is frequent among patients with type 2 DM (T2DM) (prevalence > 75%) and is mainly a mixed dyslipidemia [increase in triglycerides (TGs), low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and small-dense (atherogenic), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) particles]. The components of DD, which is characterized by quantitative (mentioned above), qualitative, and kinetic abnormalities all contributing to CVD risk, are mostly related to insulin resistance. Statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors can be used in monotherapy or consecutively in combinations if needed. Statins compose the main drug. For the residual CVD risk after statin treatment, the use of statin-fibrate combinations is indicated only in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. In conclusion, DD is a major health problem worldwide. It is a significant CVD risk factor and should be treated according to current guidelines. The means today exist to normalize all quantitative, qualitative, and kinetic aberrations of DD, thereby reducing CVD risk.

Effect of Low (5 mg) vs. High (20-40 mg) Rosuvastatin Dose on 24h Arterial Stiffness, Central Haemodynamics, and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Patients with Optimally Controlled Arterial Hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: Arterial Stiffness (AS) and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Diseases (NAFLD) are 2 related, prevalent, risk predictors of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD). We assessed the effect of low dose (5 mg/day) vs. high dose (20-40 mg/day) rosuvastatin on aortic elasticity and central haemodynamics as well as on NAFLD in patients with Arterial Hypertension (AH). METHODS: Forty patients with optimally controlled AH were randomised to 2 rosuvastatin doses and followed for 6 months. 24h AS was assessed by Mobil-O-Graph, which calculates (adjusted for age and gender) Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV), adjusted for Heart Rate (HR) augmentation index (AIx75%) and central haemodynamics. The diagnosis of NAFLD was based on >5% liver steatosis on ultrasound and moderately elevated serum levels of liver enzymes. RESULTS: Both doses of rosuvastatin reduced Central Pulse Pressure (cPP), PWV and AIx75% (adjusted for HR) to normal values (p = NS adjusted for age, gender and HR). Liver enzymes were reduced in those with NAFLD to normal, but steatosis was reduced more by the 20-40 mg/day rosuvastatin dose (p=0.01) compared with the 5 mg/day dose. CONCLUSION: Both doses of rosuvastatin had a beneficial effect on AS; the high dose was more efficient in reducing PWVs and central haemodynamics, and also the high dose was more effective in ameliorating NAFLD. Given that AH control was optimal and lipid values attained targets, 4 other CVD predictors were also addressed. Larger and longer term studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical benefit of such treatment preference.