English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Hypertension (HTN) is common following renal transplantation and it is associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular (CV) and graft health. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is the preferred method to characterize blood pressure (BP) status, since HTN misclassification by office BP (OBP) is quite common in this population. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the clinical utility of 24-h ABPM and its potential implications for the management of HTN in this population. Methods Ovid-MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched for interventional or observational studies enrolling adult kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) undergoing 24-h ABP readings compared with OBP or home BP. The main outcome was the proportion of KTRs diagnosed with HTN by ABPM, home or OBP recordings. Additionally, day–night BP variability and dipper/non-dipper status were assessed. Results Forty-two eligible studies (4115 participants) were reviewed. A cumulative analysis including 27 studies (3481 participants) revealed a prevalence of uncontrolled HTN detected by ABPM of 56% [95% confidence interval (CI) 46–65%]. The pooled prevalence of uncontrolled HTN according to OBP was 47% (95% CI 36–58%) in 25 studies (3261 participants). Very few studies reported on home BP recordings. The average concordance rate between OBP and ABPM measurements in classifying patients as controlled or uncontrolled hypertensive was 66% (95% CI 59–73%). ABPM revealed HTN phenotypes among KTRs. Two pooled analyses of 11 and 10 studies, respectively, revealed an average prevalence of 26% (95% CI 19–33%) for masked HTN (MHT) and 10% (95% CI 6–17%) for white-coat HTN (WCH). The proportion of non-dippers was variable across the 28 studies that analysed dipping status, with an average prevalence of 54% (95% CI 45–63%). Conclusions In our systematic review, comparison of OBP versus ABP measurements disclosed a high proportion of MHT, uncontrolled HTN and, to a lesser extent, WCH in KTRs. These results suggest that HTN is not adequately diagnosed and controlled by OBP recordings in this population. Furthermore, the high prevalence of non-dippers confirmed that circadian rhythm is commonly disturbed in KTRs.

Assessment of hypertension in kidney transplantation by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis