Peters Christian D, Olesen Kevin K W, Laugesen Esben, Mæng Michael, Bøtker Hans Erik, Poulsen Per L, Buus Niels Henrik
Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Kidney Int Rep. 2023 Nov 7;9(2):296-311. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2023.11.001. eCollection 2024 Feb.
Central aortic blood pressure (BP) could be a better risk predictor than brachial BP. This study examined whether invasively measured aortic systolic BP improved outcome prediction beyond risk prediction by conventional cuff-based office systolic BP in patients with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD).
In a prospective, longitudinal cohort study, aortic and office systolic BPs were registered in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography (CAG). CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min per 1.73 m. Multivariable Cox models were used to determine the association with incident myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death.
Aortic and office systolic BPs were available in 39,866 patients (mean age: 64 years; 58% males; 64% with hypertension) out of which 6605 (17%) had CKD. During a median follow-up of 7.2 years (interquartile range: 4.6-10.1 years), 1367 strokes (CKD: 353), 1858 MIs (CKD: 446), and 7551 deaths (CKD: 2515) occurred. CKD increased the risk of stroke, MI, and death significantly. Office and aortic systolic BP were both associated with stroke in non-CKD patients (adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence interval per 10 mm Hg: 1.08 [1.05-1.12] and 1.06 [1.03-1.09], respectively) and with MI in patients with CKD (adjusted hazard ratios: 1.08 [1.03-1.13] and 1.08 [1.04-1.12], respectively). There was no significant difference between prediction of outcome with office or aortic systolic BP when adjusted models were compared with C-statistics.
Regardless of CKD status, invasively measured central aortic systolic BP does not improve the ability to predict outcome compared with brachial office BP measurement.
中心主动脉血压(BP)可能比肱动脉血压更能准确预测风险。本研究旨在探讨,对于患有和未患有慢性肾脏病(CKD)的患者,通过有创测量的主动脉收缩压,相比于基于传统袖带测量的诊室收缩压进行风险预测,是否能改善结局预测。
在一项前瞻性纵向队列研究中,对接受选择性冠状动脉造影(CAG)的患者记录主动脉收缩压和诊室收缩压。CKD定义为估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)<60 ml/(min·1.73 m²)。采用多变量Cox模型确定与新发心肌梗死(MI)、中风和死亡的关联。
39866例患者(平均年龄:64岁;58%为男性;64%患有高血压)有主动脉收缩压和诊室收缩压数据,其中6605例(17%)患有CKD。在中位随访7.2年(四分位间距:4.6 - 10.1年)期间,发生1367例中风(CKD患者:353例)、1858例MI(CKD患者:446例)和7551例死亡(CKD患者:2515例)。CKD显著增加中风、MI和死亡风险。诊室收缩压和主动脉收缩压在非CKD患者中均与中风相关(每10 mmHg调整后风险比及95%置信区间:分别为1.08 [1.05 - 1.12]和1.06 [1.03 - 1.09]),在CKD患者中均与MI相关(调整后风险比:分别为1.08 [1.03 - 1.13]和1.08 [1.04 - 1.12])。当比较调整模型的C统计量时,诊室收缩压或主动脉收缩压对结局的预测无显著差异。
无论CKD状态如何,与肱动脉诊室血压测量相比,有创测量的中心主动脉收缩压并不能提高结局预测能力。