Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in kidney transplant recipients is more adequate to monitor BP than office BP

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_AGENA_Home_blood_pressure_BP_monitoring_in_kidney_transplant_2011.PDF (214.72 KB)
Citações na Scopus
25
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2011
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
OXFORD UNIV PRESS
Autores
PRADO, Elisangela dos Santos
Citação
NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, v.26, n.11, p.3745-3749, 2011
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background. Hypertension is highly prevalent among kidney transplantation recipients and considered as an important cardiovascular risk factor influencing patient survival and kidney graft survival. Aim. Compare the blood pressure (BP) control in kidney transplant patients through the use of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is more comparable with the results of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring compared to the measurement of office blood pressure. Methods. From March 2008 to April 2009 prospectively were evaluated 183 kidney transplant recipients with time after transplantation between 1 and 10 years. Patients underwent three methods for measuring BP: office blood pressure measurement (oBP), HBPM and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Results. In total, 183 patients were evaluated, among them 94 were men (54%) and 89 women (46%). The average age was 50 6 11 years. The average time of transplant was 57 6 32 months. Ninety-nine patients received grafts from deceased donors (54%) and 84 were recipients of living donors (46%). When assessed using oBP, 56.3% presented with uncontrolled and 43.7% with adequate control of BP with an average of 138.9/82.3 +/- 17.8/12.1 mmHg. However, when measured by HBPM, 55.2% of subjects were controlled and 44.8% presented with uncontrolled BP with an average of 131.1/78.5 +/- 17.4/8.9 mmHg. Using the ABPM, we observed that 63.9% of subjects were controlled and 36.1% of patients presented uncontrolled BP with an average 128.8/80.5 +/- 12.5/8.1 mmHg. We found that the two methods (oBP and HBPM) have a significant agreement, but the HBPM has a higher agreement that oBP, confirmed P = 0.026. We found that there is no symmetry in the data for both methods with McNemar test. The correlation index of Pearson linear methods for the ABPM with the other two methods were 0.494 for office measurement and 0.768 for HBPM, best value of HBPM with ABPM. Comparing the errors of the two methods by paired t-test, we obtained the descriptive level of 0.837. Looking at the receiver operating characteristic curve for BP measurements in each method, we observed that oBP is lower than those obtained by HBPM in relation to ABPM. Conclusion. We conclude that the results obtained with HBPM were closer to the ABPM results than those obtained with BP obtained at oBP, being more sensitive to detect poor control of hypertension in renal transplant recipients.
Palavras-chave
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure, home blood pressure monitoring, kidney transplantation
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/22452
Referências
  1. Aakhus S, 1999, NEPHROL DIAL TRANSPL, V14, P648, DOI 10.1093/ndt/14.3.648
  2. Premasathian NC, 2004, J HUM HYPERTENS, V18, P871, DOI 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001767
  3. Paoletti E, 2009, TRANSPLANTATION, V87, P1864, DOI 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a76775
  4. Mancia G, 1997, CIRCULATION, V95, P1464
  5. Mange KC, 2000, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V283, P633, DOI 10.1001/jama.283.5.633
  6. Bobrie G, 2004, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V291, P1342, DOI 10.1001/jama.291.11.1342
  7. Pickering TG, 2008, HYPERTENSION, V52, P1, DOI 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.189011
  8. Kasiske BL, 2000, J AM SOC NEPHROL, V11, P1735
  9. Chatellier G, 1996, AM J HYPERTENS, V9, P644, DOI 10.1016/0895-7061(96)00018-0
  10. Ohkubo T, 2004, J HYPERTENS, V22, P1099, DOI 10.1097/01.hjh.0000125406.50839.15
  11. Mange KC, 2004, J AM SOC NEPHROL, V15, P187, DOI 10.1097/01.ASN.0000104574.04006.08
  12. Chobanian AV, 2003, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V289, P2560, DOI 10.1001/jama.289.19.2560
  13. Kasiske BL, 2004, AM J KIDNEY DIS, V43, P1071, DOI 10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.03.013
  14. Opelz G, 1998, KIDNEY INT, V53, P217, DOI 10.1046/j.1523-1755.1998.00744.x
  15. Pickering TG, 2005, CIRCULATION, V111, P697, DOI 10.1161/01.CIR.0000154900.76284.F6
  16. Sega R, 2005, CIRCULATION, V111, P1777, DOI 10.1161/01.CIR.0000160923.04524.5B
  17. El Assaad MA, 2003, BLOOD PRESS MONIT, V8, P127, DOI 10.1097/01.mbp.0000087393.96145.b1
  18. Mallick S, 2009, AM J MED, V122, P803, DOI 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.02.028
  19. Mano Gisele M P, 2002, Arq Bras Cardiol, V79, P606, DOI 10.1590/S0066-782X2002001500006
  20. Masding MG, 2001, DIABETIC MED, V18, P431, DOI 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2001.00513.x
  21. Peixoto A J, 1999, Blood Press Monit, V4, P217, DOI 10.1097/00126097-199910000-00003
  22. Stergiou GS, 2000, J HYPERTENS, V18, P1745, DOI 10.1097/00004872-200018120-00007
  23. Tomson CRV, 2003, TRANSPLANTATION, V76, P1643, DOI 10.1097/01.TP.0000091289.03300.1A
  24. Verdecchia P, 2009, HYPERTENSION, V54, pE130, DOI 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.139345

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC