Key result
Incident peritoneal dialysis patients with clinically detectible pitting edema maintained significantly higher systolic blood pressure levels over 12 months of follow-up compared to those without edema (p=0.001).
Why the study?
Does the presence of pitting edema correlate with worse blood pressure control in incident peritoneal dialysis patients?
Cohort (n=1,089)
Yes
Does the presence of pitting edema correlate with worse blood pressure control in incident peritoneal dialysis patients?
The presence of simple pitting edema is a useful clinical sign associated with worse blood pressure control in incident peritoneal dialysis patients, highlighting the role of fluid overload in hypertension resistance.
Pitting edema may mark resistant hypertension in incident PD patients; leaves open whether volume-targeted interventions improve BP control.
Systemic arterial hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease that is frequently observed in populations with declining renal function. Initiation of renal replacement therapy at least partially decreases signs of fluid overload; however, high blood pressure levels persist in the majority of patients after dialysis initiation. Hypervolemia due to water retention predisposes peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients to hypertension and can clinically manifest in several forms, including peripheral edema. The approaches to detect edema, which include methods such as bioimpedance, inferior vena cava diameter and biomarkers, are not always available to physicians worldwide. For clinical examinations, the presence of pitting located in the lower extremities and/or over the sacrum to diagnose the presence of peripheral edema in their patients are frequently utulized. We evaluated the impact of edema on the control of blood pressure of incident PD patients during the first year of dialysis treatment. Patients were recruited from 114 Brazilian dialysis centers that were participating in the BRAZPD study for a total of 1089 incident patients. Peripheral edema was diagnosed by the presence of pitting after finger pressure was applied to the edematous area. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with and without edema according to the monthly medical evaluation. Blood arterial pressure, body mass index, the number of antihypertensive drugs and comorbidities were analyzed. We observed an initial BP reduction in the first five months and a stabilization of blood pressure levels from five to twelve months. The edematous group exhibited higher blood pressure levels than the group without edema during the follow-up. The results strongly indicate that the presence of a simple and easily detectable clinical sign of peripheral edema is a very relevant tool that could be used to re-evaluate not only the patient's clinical hypertensive status but also the PD prescription and patient compliance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Filho et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Systemic arterial hypertension in incident peritoneal dialysis patients (n=1,089). Clinically detectible pitting edema vs. Without clinically detectible pitting edema was evaluated on Systolic arterial pressure (SAP) over 12 months (p=0.001). Incident peritoneal dialysis patients with clinically detectible pitting edema maintained significantly higher systolic blood pressure levels over 12 months of follow-up compared to those without edema (p=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: