Sheldon W. Tobe

Left ventricular mass index increase in early renal disease: Impact of decline in hemoglobin

Cardiovascular disease occurs in patients with progressive renal disease both before and after the initiation of dialysis. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality in dialysis populations and is common in the renal insufficiency population. LVH is associated with numerous modifiable risk factors, but little is known about LV growth (LVG) in mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency. This prospective multicenter Canadian cohort study identifies factors associated with LVG, measured using two-dimensional-targeted M-mode echocardiography. Eight centers enrolled 446 patients, 318 of whom had protocol-mandated clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic measurements recorded. We report 246 patients with assessable echocardiograms at both baseline and 12 months with an overall prevalence of LVH of 36%. LV mass index (LVMI) increased significantly (>20% of baseline or >20 g/m2) from baseline to 12 months in 25% of the population. Other than baseline LVMI, no differences in baseline variables were noted between patients with and without LVG. However, there were significant differences in decline of Hgb level (-0.854 v -0.108 g/dL; P = 0.0001) and change in systolic blood pressure (+6.50 v -1.09 mm Hg; P = 0.03) between the groups with and without LVG. Multivariate analysis showed the independent contribution of decrease in Hgb level (odds ratio [OR], 1.32 for each 0.5-g/dL decrease; P = 0.004), increase in systolic blood pressure (OR, 1.11 for each 5-mm Hg increase; P = 0.01), and lower baseline LVMI (OR, 0.85 for each 10-g/m2; P = 0.011) in predicting LVG. Thus, after adjusting for baseline LVMI, Hgb level and systolic blood pressure remain independently important predictors of LVG. We defined the important modifiable risk factors. There remains a critical need to establish optimal therapeutic strategies and targets to improve clinical outcomes.

The 2009 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part 2 – therapy

OBJECTIVE To update the evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and management of hypertension in adults for 2009. OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES For lifestyle and pharmacological interventions, evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of trials was preferentially reviewed. Changes in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality were the primary outcomes of interest. However, for lifestyle interventions, blood pressure lowering was accepted as a primary outcome given the lack of long-term morbidity and mortality data in this field. Progression of kidney dysfunction was also accepted as a clinically relevant primary outcome among patients with chronic kidney disease. EVIDENCE A Cochrane collaboration librarian conducted an independent MEDLINE search from 2007 to August 2008 to update the 2008 recommendations. To identify additional published studies, reference lists were reviewed and experts were contacted. All relevant articles were reviewed and appraised independently by both content and methodological experts using prespecified levels of evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS For lifestyle modifications to prevent and treat hypertension, restrict dietary sodium to less than 2300 mg (100 mmol)/day (and 1500 mg to 2300 mg [65 mmol to 100 mmol]/day in hypertensive patients); perform 30 min to 60 min of aerobic exercise four to seven days per week; maintain a healthy body weight (body mass index 18.5 kg/m(2) to 24.9 kg/m(2)) and waist circumference (smaller than 102 cm for men and smaller than 88 cm for women); limit alcohol consumption to no more than 14 units per week in men or nine units per week in women; follow a diet that is reduced in saturated fat and cholesterol, and that emphasizes fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy products, dietary and soluble fibre, whole grains and protein from plant sources; and consider stress management in selected individuals with hypertension. For the pharmacological management of hypertension, treatment thresholds and targets should be predicated on by the patients global atherosclerotic risk, target organ damage and comorbid conditions. Blood pressure should be decreased to lower than 140/90 mmHg in all patients, and to lower than 130/80 mmHg in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. Most patients will require more than one agent to achieve these target blood pressures. Antihypertensive therapy should be considered in all adult patients regardless of age (caution should be exercised in elderly patients who are frail). For adults without compelling indications for other agents, initial therapy should include thiazide diuretics. Other agents appropriate for first-line therapy for diastolic and/or systolic hypertension include angiotensin- converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (in patients who are not black), long-acting calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs) or beta-blockers (in those younger than 60 years of age). A combination of two first-line agents may also be considered as the initial treatment of hypertension if the systolic blood pressure is 20 mmHg above the target or if the diastolic blood pressure is 10 mmHg above the target. The combination of ACE inhibitors and ARBs should not be used. Other agents appropriate for first-line therapy for isolated systolic hypertension include long- acting dihydropyridine CCBs or ARBs. In patients with angina, recent myocardial infarction or heart failure, beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy; in patients with cerebrovascular disease, an ACE inhibitor/diuretic combination is preferred; in patients with proteinuric nondiabetic chronic kidney disease, ACE inhibitors or ARBs (if intolerant to ACE inhibitors) are recommended; and in patients with diabetes mellitus, ACE inhibitors or ARBs (or, in patients without albuminuria, thiazides or dihydropyridine CCBs) are appropriate first-line therapies. All hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia should be treated using the thresholds, targets and agents outlined in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement (recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease). Selected high-risk patients with hypertension who do not achieve thresholds for statin therapy according to the position paper should nonetheless receive statin therapy. Once blood pressure is controlled, acetylsalicylic acid therapy should be considered. VALIDATION All recommendations were graded according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the 57 members of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program Evidence-Based Recommendations Task Force. All recommendations reported here achieved at least 95% consensus. These guidelines will continue to be updated annually.

The 2013 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension.

We updated the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults for 2013. This years update includes 2 new recommendations. First, among nonhypertensive or stage 1 hypertensive individuals, the use of resistance or weight training exercise does not adversely influence blood pressure (BP) (Grade D). Thus, such patients need not avoid this type of exercise for fear of increasing BP. Second, and separately, for very elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (age 80 years or older), the target for systolic BP should be < 150 mm Hg (Grade C) rather than < 140 mm Hg as recommended for younger patients. We also discuss 2 additional topics at length (the pharmacological treatment of mild hypertension and the possibility of a diastolic J curve in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease). In light of several methodological limitations, a recent systematic review of 4 trials in patients with stage 1 uncomplicated hypertension did not lead to changes in management recommendations. In addition, because of a lack of prospective randomized data assessing diastolic BP thresholds in patients with coronary artery disease and hypertension, no recommendation to set a selective diastolic cut point for such patients could be affirmed. However, both of these issues will be examined on an ongoing basis, in particular as new evidence emerges.

The 2008 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part 1 - blood pressure measurement, diagnosis and assessment of risk.

OBJECTIVE To provide updated, evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and assessment of adults with hypertension. OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES The diagnosis of hypertension is dependent on appropriate blood pressure measurement, the timely assessment of serially elevated readings, degree of blood pressure elevation, method of measurement (office, ambulatory, home) and associated comorbidities. The presence of cardiovascular risk factors and target organ damage should be ascertained to assess global cardiovascular risk and determine the urgency, intensity and type of treatment required. EVIDENCE MEDLINE searches were conducted from November 2006 to October 2007 with the aid of a medical librarian. Reference lists were scanned, experts were contacted, and the personal files of authors and subgroup members were used to identify additional studies. Content and methodological experts assessed studies using prespecified, standardized evidence-based algorithms. Recommendations were based on evidence from peer-reviewed, full-text articles only. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for blood pressure measurement, criteria for hypertension diagnosis and follow-up, assessment of global cardiovascular risk, diagnostic testing, diagnosis of renovascular and endocrine causes of hypertension, home and ambulatory monitoring, and the use of echocardiography in hypertensive individuals are outlined. Key messages in 2008 include continued emphasis on the expedited, accurate diagnosis of hypertension, the importance of global risk assessment and the need for ongoing monitoring of hypertensive patients to identify incident type 2 diabetes. VALIDATION All recommendations were graded according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the 57 members of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program Evidence-Based Recommendations Task Force. All recommendations reported here received at least 70% consensus. These guidelines will continue to be updated annually.

Guidelines for the management of chronic kidney disease

New guidelines for the management of chronic kidney disease have been developed by the Canadian Society of Nephrology (Appendix 1 contains the full-text guidelines; available at [www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/11/1154/DC1][1]). These guidelines describe key aspects of the management of chronic

The 2011 Canadian Hypertension Education Program Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension: Blood Pressure Measurement, Diagnosis, Assessment of Risk, and Therapy

We updated the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults for 2011. The major guideline changes this year are: (1) a recommendation was made for using comparative risk analogies when communicating a patients cardiovascular risk; (2) diagnostic testing issues for renal artery stenosis were discussed; (3) recommendations were added for the management of hypertension during the acute phase of stroke; (4) people with hypertension and diabetes are now considered high risk for cardiovascular events if they have elevated urinary albumin excretion, overt kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors; (5) the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) is preferred over the combination of an ACE inhibitor and a thiazide diuretic in persons with diabetes and hypertension; and (6) a recommendation was made to coordinate with pharmacists to improve antihypertensive medication adherence. We also discussed the recent analyses that examined the association between angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer.

Conventional versus automated measurement of blood pressure in primary care patients with systolic hypertension: randomised parallel design controlled trial

Objective To compare the quality and accuracy of manual office blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using the awake ambulatory blood pressure as a gold standard. Design Multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care practices in five cities in eastern Canada. Participants 555 patients with systolic hypertension and no serious comorbidities under the care of 88 primary care physicians in 67 practices in the community. Interventions Practices were randomly allocated to either ongoing use of manual office blood pressure (control group) or automated office blood pressure (intervention group) using the BpTRU device. The last routine manual office blood pressure (mm Hg) was obtained from each patient’s medical record before enrolment. Office blood pressure readings were compared before and after enrolment in the intervention and control groups; all readings were also compared with the awake ambulatory blood pressure. Main outcome measure Difference in systolic blood pressure between awake ambulatory blood pressure minus automated office blood pressure and awake ambulatory blood pressure minus manual office blood pressure. Results Cluster randomisation allocated 31 practices (252 patients) to manual office blood pressure and 36 practices (303 patients) to automated office blood pressure measurement. The most recent routine manual office blood pressure (149.5 (SD 10.8)/81.4 (8.3)) was higher than automated office blood pressure (135.6 (17.3)/77.7 (10.9)) (P<0.001). In the control group, routine manual office blood pressure before enrolment (149.9 (10.7)/81.8 (8.5)) was reduced to 141.4 (14.6)/80.2 (9.5) after enrolment (P<0.001/P=0.01), but the reduction in the intervention group from manual office to automated office blood pressure was significantly greater (P<0.001/P=0.02). On the first study visit after enrolment, the estimated mean difference for the intervention group between the awake ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure and automated office blood pressure (−2.3 (95% confidence interval −0.31 to −4.3)/−3.3 (−2.7 to −4.4)) was less (P=0.006/P=0.26) than the difference in the control group between the awake ambulatory blood pressure and the manual office blood pressure (−6.5 (−4.3 to −8.6)/−4.3 (−2.9 to −5.8)). Systolic/diastolic automated office blood pressure showed a stronger (P<0.001) within group correlation (r=0.34/r=0.56) with awake ambulatory blood pressure after enrolment compared with manual office blood pressure versus awake ambulatory blood pressure before enrolment (r=0.10/r= 0.40); the mean difference in r was 0.24 (0.12 to 0.36)/0.16 (0.07 to 0.25)). The between group correlation comparing diastolic automated office blood pressure and awake ambulatory blood pressure (r=0.56) was stronger (P<0.001) than that for manual office blood pressure versus awake ambulatory blood pressure (r=0.30); the mean difference in r was 0.26 (0.09 to 0.41). Digit preference with readings ending in zero was substantially reduced by use of automated office blood pressure. Conclusion In compliant, otherwise healthy, primary care patients with systolic hypertension, introduction of automated office blood pressure into routine primary care significantly reduced the white coat response compared with the ongoing use of manual office blood pressure measurement. The quality and accuracy of automated office blood pressure in relation to the awake ambulatory blood pressure was also significantly better when compared with manual office blood pressure. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT 00214053.

Measurement of Blood Pressure in the Office. Recognizing the Problem and Proposing the Solution

The widely accepted cut-point for normal blood pressure (BP) in the office setting evolved over several decades, based on data derived from a variety of sources. The Actuarial Society of America was one of the first organizations to publish BP data on thousands of community residents, followed by other classic studies such as Framingham, Western Electric Company, Kaiser Permanente, and the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.1,2 In every instance, BP readings were based on measurements taken by specially trained health professionals following guidelines for proper BP measurement. As a result of these and other population studies examining the association between different BP levels and cardiovascular outcomes, the importance of systolic and diastolic hypertension was recognized and an office BP of 140/90 mm Hg became the universally established cut-point for separating normal BP from hypertension. There are robust scientific data to support the use of 140/90 mm Hg to define hypertension in clinical practice guidelines. However, the guidelines do not take into account widely recognized problems associated with the quality of manual BP measurement in routine clinical practice.3 More recent recommendations4 for diagnosing hypertension clearly acknowledge that an increase in BP attributable to the “white coat response” is frequently associated with manual BP recordings performed in community-based practice. In recognizing this limitation of manual office BP, some guidelines have gone so far as to recommend that home BP and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) may need to be performed to obtain an accurate measure of a patient’s BP status. The greater reliance on 24-hour ABPM and home BP in the diagnosis and management of hypertension is the result of numerous clinical outcome studies5,6 that show that these measurement techniques are better predictors of cardiovascular events when compared to manual BP readings, even when manual readings are taken …

Hemodialysis Infection Prevention with Polysporin Ointment

Hemodialysis patients in whom permanent vascular access cannot be achieved are dependent on a central venous catheter. In such patients, catheter-related infections are a common and serious complication. This study was a randomized clinical trial to determine if topical Polysporin Triple antibiotic ointment applied to the central venous catheter insertion site could reduce the incidence of catheter-related infections. A total of 169 patients receiving hemodialysis through a central venous catheter were randomized to receive Polysporin Triple or placebo using a double-blind study design. In the 6-mo study period, infections were observed in more patients in the placebo group than in the Polysporin Triple group (34 versus 12%; relative risk, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.68; P = 0.0013). The number of infections per 1000 catheter days (4.10 versus 1.02; P < 0.0001) and the number of bacteremias per 1000 catheter days (2.48 versus 0.63; P = 0.0004) were also greater in the placebo group. Within the 6-mo study period, there were 13 deaths in the placebo group as compared with 3 deaths in the Polysporin Triple group (P = 0.0041). When all available follow-up information was included, the difference in survival remained significant (19 versus 9 deaths; P = 0.0027). Within the first 6 mo, infections were observed in 7 of the 13 placebo subjects who died (54%) as compared with no infections in the three Polysporin Triple subjects who died. The prophylactic application of topical Polysporin Triple antibiotic ointment to the central venous catheter insertion site reduced the rate of infections and was associated with improved survival in hemodialysis patients.

Supramaximal Dose of Candesartan in Proteinuric Renal Disease

High levels of proteinuria predict renal deterioration, suggesting that interventions to reduce proteinuria may postpone the development of severe renal impairment. This multicenter Canadian trial evaluated whether supramaximal dosages of candesartan would reduce proteinuria to a greater extent than the maximum approved antihypertensive dosage. The authors randomly assigned 269 patients who had persistent proteinuria (> or =1 g/d) despite 7 wk of treatment with the highest approved dosage of candesartan (16 mg/d) to 16, 64, or 128 mg/d candesartan for 30 wk. The median serum creatinine level was 130.0 micromol/L (1.47 mg/dl), and the median urinary protein excretion was 2.66 g/d; most (53.9%) patients had diabetic nephropathy. The mean difference of the percentage change in proteinuria for patients receiving 128 mg/d candesartan compared with those receiving 16 mg/d candesartan was -33.05% (95% confidence interval -45.70 to -17.44; P < 0.0001). Reductions in BP were not different across the three treatment groups. Elevated serum potassium levels (K+ > 5.5 mEq/L) led to the early withdrawal of 11 patients, but there were no dosage-related increases in adverse events. In conclusion, proteinuria that persists despite treatment with the maximum recommended dosage of candesartan can be reduced by increasing the dosage of candesartan further, but serum potassium levels should be monitored during treatment.