Why the study?
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring characterizes blood pressure patterns in patients with CKD, motivating a comparison of ABPM profiles and laboratory results in hypertensive inpatients with and without recorded CKD.
Population
403 hypertensive inpatients
Comparison
149 patients with recorded CKD vs 254 without recorded CKD
Design
Retrospective cross-sectional study
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective cross-sectional study observes higher 24-hour blood pressure and arterial stiffness in hypertensive inpatients with kidney disease, indicating elevated vascular load.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) characterizes blood pressure patterns in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This retrospective cross-sectional study compared ABPM profiles and laboratory results in 403 hypertensive inpatients, including 149 with and 254 without recorded CKD. Separate ABPM outcome models adjusted for age, sex, and diabetes. Recorded CKD was associated with higher mean 24-h systolic pressure (adjusted difference, 12.48 mmHg; 95% CI, 7.98–16.98), pulse pressure (8.04 mmHg; 95% CI, 5.16–10.91), and diastolic pressure (4.45 mmHg; 95% CI, 1.73–7.17). The ambulatory arterial stiffness index remained higher after additional adjustment for nocturnal decline (difference, 0.042; 95% CI, 0.013–0.071). Neither systolic nor diastolic decline < 10% showed a clear adjusted association with recorded CKD. In secondary models including haemoglobin, neither erythrocyte sedimentation rate nor fibrinogen showed a clear association. Numerical urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, available for 234 patients, correlated with mean systolic pressure (ρ = 0.289; q < 0.001). These findings describe associations within an inpatient sample. Unverified CKD chronicity, unavailable recording-quality and treatment data, and missing urine results limit interpretation; urine analyses remain exploratory because they were unadjusted and predominantly involved recorded zero ratios.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tănăsescu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: