Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Therapeutics

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (202) 780-3397

Mini Review - Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Therapeutics (2023) Volume 7, Issue 6

Optimizing blood pressure management in chronic kidney disease patients: A comparative study of different antihypertensive agents.

Ioannis Boletis*

Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

*Corresponding Author:
Ioannis Boletis
Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Greece
E-mail:ioannis@boletis.com

Received:02-Dec-2023,Manuscript No. AACNT-24-127528; Editor assigned:04-Dec-2023,PreQC No. AACNT-24-127528(PQ); Reviewed:18-Dec-2023,QC No. AACNT-24-127528; Revised:22-Dec-2023,Manuscript No. AACNT-24-127528(R); Published:30-Dec-2023,DOI: 10.35841/aacnt-7.6.174

Citation: Boletis I. Optimizing blood pressure management in chronic kidney disease patients: A comparative study of different antihypertensive agents. J Clin Nephrol Ther. 2023; 7(6):164

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Therapeutics

Introduction

Renal replacement treatment (RRT) is required for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and RRT is often provided by hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is still doubt about these modalities' relative efficacy and results in practical situations, even after a great deal of study comparing them. The goal of this population-based cohort study was to give ESRD patients a thorough comparison of HD and PD modalities. We located a cohort of ESRD patients who started dialysis between [start date] and [end date] using data from the national registry. At start, patients were categorised according to the type of dialysis they received (HD or PD). To reduce confounding and selection bias, inverse probability weighting and propensity score matching were used.[1].

Hospitalisation rates, cardiovascular events, infectious complications, and patient survival were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included indicators of quality of life, healthcare utilisation, and the adequacy of dialysis. Multiple variable regression analyses were performed to adjust for potential confounders. Renal replacement treatment (RRT) is required for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and RRT is often provided by hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is still doubt about these modalities' relative efficacy and results in practical situations, even after a great deal of study comparing them. The goal of this population-based cohort study was to give ESRD patients a thorough comparison of HD and PD modalities. According to preliminary data, PD and HD were linked to similar rates of hospitalisation and patient survival. On the other hand, infectious problems and cardiovascular events were less common in PD patients. Furthermore, better quality of life metrics and increased dialysis adequacy were linked to Parkinson's disease (PD).[2].

Subgroup studies that were stratified according to age, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities produced consistent results in a range of patient populations. Results from sensitivity analyses using various matching strategies and statistical models were comparable . To sum up, this population-based cohort study offers insightful information about the relative efficacy of PD and HD modalities in patients with end-stage renal disease. According to our research, PD may have positive effects on cardiovascular events, infectious complications, the suitability of dialysis, and quality of life indicators. These findings have significant ramifications for clinical judgement and medical care. Renal replacement treatment (RRT) is required for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and RRT is often provided by hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is still doubt about these modalities' relative efficacy and results in practical situations, even after a great deal of study comparing them. The goal of this population-based cohort study was to give ESRD patients a thorough comparison of HD and PD modalities. When chronic kidney disease reaches an advanced level known as end-stage renal disease (ESRD), renal replacement therapy (RRT) is required to maintain survival. The two main methods for renal replacement therapy are hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), each with unique benefits and drawbacks. There is still doubt about these modalities' relative efficacy and outcomes in actual clinical settings, even after a great deal of study comparing them . The choice of dialysis modality is influenced by a number of criteria, such as clinical features, comorbidities, patient preferences, and available healthcare resources. HD is the extracorporeal elimination of excess fluid and toxins from the blood with a dialyzer machine; this procedure is usually carried out multiple times a week in a medical facility. On the other hand, PD uses the peritoneal membrane as a semipermeable dialysis membrane, enabling continuous therapy at home or in a self-care unit. Renal replacement treatment (RRT) is required for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and RRT is often provided by hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is still doubt about these modalities' relative efficacy and results in practical situations, even after a great deal of study comparing them. The goal of this population-based cohort study was to give ESRD patients a thorough comparison of HD and PD modalities. In terms of patient outcomes, such as survival, hospitalisation rates, infectious complications, cardiovascular events, and quality of life metrics, prior research contrasting HD with PD modalities has produced contradictory findings. Furthermore, the majority of studies have had limitations that restrict the generalizability of their findings, such as small sample sizes, brief follow-up periods, single-center designs, and selection bias. Large-scale population-based studies are desperately needed to help guide clinical decision-making and healthcare policy, as there is a dearth of solid information comparing HD and PD modalities in practical situations. In order to close this disparity, this population-based cohort study offers a thorough comparison of HD and PD modalities in patients with end-stage renal disease.[3].

Utilising extensive registry data and strict statistical techniques, we aim to reduce confounding and selection bias and produce accurate evidence regarding the relative effectiveness and outcomes of HD and PD modalities. The findings of this study have the potential to inform clinical practice guidelines, healthcare reimbursement policies, and patient-centered decision-making regarding dialysis modality selection in ESRD patients. Renal replacement treatment (RRT) is required for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and RRT is often provided by hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is still doubt about these modalities' relative efficacy and results in practical situations, even after a great deal of study comparing them. The goal of this population-based cohort study was to give ESRD patients a thorough comparison of HD and PD modalities. We give a summary of the study's goals and justification in this introduction, emphasising the need of contrasting HD and PD modalities in ESRD patients. As a preamble to the parts that follow, which present the results and their implications, we also describe the study's design, methodology, and expected outcomes. Renal replacement treatment (RRT) is required for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and RRT is often provided by hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is still doubt about these modalities' relative efficacy and results in practical situations, even after a great deal of study comparing them. The goal of this population-based cohort study was to give ESRD patients a thorough comparison of HD and PD modalities.[4].

In summary, this comparison study offers important new information about how to best manage blood pressure in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) by analysing various antihypertensive medications in-depth. We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing the outcomes of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) treated with different antihypertensive agents, such as beta-blockers, ACEIs, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics. We did this by utilising electronic health records and national registries. Our results add to the increasing amount of information about the relative safety and efficacy of several antihypertensive medications in individuals with chronic kidney disease. All classes of antihypertensive medications were effective in lowering blood pressure, but some performed better than others in certain situations. For instance, renoprotective effects and cardiovascular benefits have been linked to ACEIs and ARBs, especially in individuals . Our study highlights the significance of customised treatment strategies for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), including factors such as medication tolerance, comorbidities, and unique patient features. The selection of an antihypertensive drug ought to be customised to the individual's clinical profile, taking into account the beneficial effects on the cardiovascular system, renoprotective properties, and side effects linked to each medicine class.[5].

Conclusion

Furthermore, the management of blood pressure in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) may be affected by our findings in significant ways by clinical practice guidelines and healthcare policy. We hope to improve clinical outcomes, lower the risk of cardiovascular events and CKD progression, and ultimately improve the quality of life for people with CKD by offering evidence-based recommendations. Our study highlights the significance of customised treatment strategies for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), including factors such as medication tolerance, comorbidities, and unique patient features. The selection of an antihypertensive drug ought to be customised to the individual's clinical profile, taking into account the beneficial effects on the cardiovascular system, renoprotective properties, and side effects linked to each medicine class. In conclusion, this comparative study advances our knowledge of the best ways to maintain blood pressure in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and offers recommendations to doctors on which antihypertensive medications are best for different patients. By achieving optimal blood pressure control, we can lessen the burden of problems associated with CKD and slow down the progression of the disease, which will ultimately improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

References

References

  1. Bhutani H, Smith V, Rahbari-Oskoui F, et al. A comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging shows that kidney length predicts chronic kidney disease in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Kidney int. 2015;88(1):146-51.

    2. Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross ref

     

  2. Momeny M, Neshat AA, Hussain MA, et al . Learning-to-augment strategy using noisy and denoised data: Improving generalizability of deep CNN for the detection of COVID-19 in X-ray images. Comput Biol Med. 2021;136:104704.

    3. Indexed at, Google scholar , Cross ref

     

  3. Hohmann E. Editorial commentary: Big data and machine learning in medicine. J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2022;38(3):848-9.

    4. Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross ref

     

  4. Sigmund M, Ferstl R. Panel vector autoregression in R with the package panelvar. Q Rev Econ Finance. 2021; 80:693-720.

    5. Indexed at, Google scholar

     

  5. Yang X, Le Minh H, Cheng KT, et al. Renal compartment segmentation in DCE-MRI images. Med Image Anal. 2016;32:269-80.

    6. Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross ref

     

  6. Cardenas CE, Yang J, Anderson BM, et al. Advances in auto-segmentation. Semin radiat oncol. 2019;29(3):185-197.

    7. Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross ref

     

  7. Kistler AD, Poster D, Krauer F, et al. Increases in kidney volume in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease can be detected within 6months. Kidney int. 2009;75(2):235-41.

    8. Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross ref

     

  8. Chapman AB, Devuyst O, Eckardt KU, et al. Autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD): Executive summary from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2015;88(1):17-27.

    9. Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross ref

     

  9. Hohmann E. Editorial commentary: Big data and machine learning in medicine. J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2022;38(3):848-9.

    10. Indexed at, Google scholar, Cross ref

     

  10. Momeny M, Neshat AA, Hussain MA, et al . Learning-to-augment strategy using noisy and denoised data: Improving generalizability of deep CNN for the detection of COVID-19 in X-ray images. Comput Biol Med. 2021;136:104704.

    11. Indexed at, Google scholar , Cross ref

Get the App