Open AccessDiagnostic Performance of Office versus Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Kidney Transplant Recipients
Author(s) -
Maria Korogiannou,
Pantelis Sarafidis,
Marieta Theodorakopoulou,
MariaEleni Alexandrou,
Efstathios Xagas,
Ioannis Boletis,
Smaragdi Marinaki
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
american journal of nephrology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.394
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1421-9670
pISSN - 0250-8095
DOI - 10.1159/000517358
Subject(s) - medicine , ambulatory , ambulatory blood pressure , blood pressure , kidney disease , kidney transplant , intensive care medicine , kidney transplantation , kidney
Introduction: Hypertension is the most prominent risk factor in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). No study so far assessed in parallel the prevalence, control, and phenotypes of blood pressure (BP) or the accuracy of currently recommended office BP diagnostic thresholds in diagnosing elevated ambulatory BP in KTRs. Methods: 205 stable KTRs underwent office BP measurements and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Hypertension was defined as follows: (1) office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents following the current European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) guidelines, (2) office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents following the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines, (3) ABPM ≥130/80 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents, and (4) ABPM ≥125/75 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents. Results: Hypertension prevalence by office BP was 88.3% with ESC/ESH and 92.7% with ACC/AHA definitions compared to 94.1 and 98.5% at relevant ABPM thresholds. Control rates among hypertensive patients were 69.6 and 43.7% with office BP compared to 38.3 and 21.3% with ABPM, respectively. Both for prevalence (κ-statistics = 0.52, p < 0.001 and 0.32, and p < 0.001) and control rates (κ-statistics = 0.21, p < 0.001 and 0.22, and p < 0.001, respectively), there was moderate or fair agreement of the 2 techniques. White-coat and masked hypertension were diagnosed in 6.7 and 39.5% of patients at the 140/90 threshold and 5.9 and 31.7% of patients at the 130/80 threshold. An office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg had 35.3% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for the diagnosis of 24-h BP ≥130/80 mm Hg. An office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg had 59.7% sensitivity and 73.9% specificity for the diagnosis of 24-h BP ≥125/75 mm Hg. Receiver operating curve analyses confirmed this poor diagnostic performance. Conclusions: At both corresponding thresholds studied, ABPM revealed particularly high hypertension prevalence and poor BP control in KTRs. Misclassification of KTRs by office BP is substantial, due to particularly high rates of masked hypertension. The diagnostic accuracy of office BP for identifying elevated ambulatory BP is poor. These findings call for a wider use of ABPM in KTRs.