4.6 Article

Blood pressure control in chronic kidney disease: A cross-sectional analysis from the German Chronic Kidney Disease (GCKD) study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202604

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [01ER 0804, 01ER 0818, 01ER 0819, 01ER 0820, 01ER 0821, 01ER 0122]
  2. KfH Foundation for Preventive Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed the prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in patients with moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) under nephrological care in Germany. In the German Chronic Kidney Disease (GCKD) study, 5217 patients under nephrology specialist care were enrolled from 2010 to 2012 in a prospective observational cohort study. Inclusion criteria were an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30 +/- 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 or overt proteinuria in the presence of an eGFR> 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2. Office blood pressure was measured by trained study personnel in a standardized way and hypertension awareness and medication were assessed during standardized interviews. Blood pressure was considered as controlled if systolic < 140 and diastolic < 90 mmHg. In 5183 patients in whom measurements were available, mean blood pressure was 139.5 +/- 20.4 /79.3 +/- 11.8 mmHg; 4985 (96.2%) of the patients were hypertensive. Awareness and treatment rates were > 90%. However, only 2456 (49.3%) of the hypertensive patients had controlled blood pressure. About half (51.0%) of the patients with uncontrolled blood pressure met criteria for resistant hypertension. Factors associated with better odds for controlled blood pressure in multivariate analyses included younger age, female sex, higher income, low or absent proteinuria, and use of certain classes of antihypertensive medication. We conclude that blood pressure control of CKD patients remains challenging even in the setting of nephrology specialist care, despite high rates of awareness and medication use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据