Why the study?
Should ambulatory blood pressure monitoring be systematically applied to all patients on hemodialysis compared to clinic recordings to accurately diagnose hypertension?
Should ambulatory blood pressure monitoring be systematically applied to all patients on hemodialysis compared to clinic recordings to accurately diagnose hypertension?
This debate piece argues for the systematic use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hemodialysis patients to overcome the limitations of peri-dialysis blood pressure recordings.
In the adult population in general and among people with chronic kidney disease in particular, it is now well established that hypertension is a major driver of renal disease progression and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although the contribution of hypertension to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among patients on long-term dialysis continues to be debated, a major barrier to detect hypertension as a risk factor for cardiovascular events in these patients has been the inability to diagnose hypertension. Largely to blame has been the easy availability of pre-dialysis and post-dialysis blood pressure recordings in stark contrast to ambulatory blood pressure measurements in dialysis patients to accurately diagnose the presence or control of hypertension. It is increasingly becoming clear that out-of-office blood pressure recordings are superior to clinic recordings in making a diagnosis, assessing target organ damage, evaluating prognosis and managing patients with hypertension. In this debate, I have been asked to defend the position that ambulatory blood pressure recordings should be systematically applied to all patients on hemodialysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rajiv Agarwal (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: