Haley, William E.

Blood pressure (BP) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on the concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goal of this analysis was to evaluate concordance in: 1) clinic BP and ambulatory BP, 2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability and 3) initial and repeat ambulatory BP. We also sought to evaluate whether treatment assignment of intensive vs standard BP target affected these relationships. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 SPRINT participants at the 27 month follow up visit and 203 consecutive repeat ambulatory BP readings taken an average of 9.8 months later. There was poor agreement between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP (limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard treatment group). There was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability (coefficient of variation) and ambulatory BP variability (coefficient of variation of a 24 hr ambulatory BP) with correlation coefficients for systolic BP <0.16. While there was a high correlation between ambulatory BP at 27 months and repeat ambulatory BP (r ~0.56), there was significant variability between repeat ambulatory BP assessments (limits of agreement of -27 to 21 mm Hg in the intensive group and -23 to 20 mm Hg in the standard group). In conclusion, irrespective of treatment target, we found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic BP and ambulatory BP, and additionally between repeat ambulatory BP assessments. These results reinforce the need for multiple guideline adherent BP measurements prior to clinical decision making.

Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control improved outcomes in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Our objective was to expand on reported findings by analysis of baseline characteristics, primary outcomes, adverse events, follow-up blood pressure, and medication use differences by baseline SBP (tertile 1 [T1], <132; tertile 2 [T2], 132–145; and tertile 3 [T3], >145 mm Hg). Participants with higher baseline SBP tertile were more often women and older, had higher cardiovascular risk, and lower utilization of antihypertensive medications, statins, and aspirin. Achieved SBP in both treatment arms was slightly higher in T2 and T3 compared with T1 and fewer in the T3 groups achieved SBP targets compared with T1 and T2 groups. The primary composite outcome with intensive versus standard SBP treatment was reduced by 30% in T1, 23% in T2, and 17% in T3 with no evidence of an interaction ( P =0.77). Event rates were lower in the intensive arm, and there was no evidence that this benefit differed by SBP tertile. There was no difference in the hazard for serious adverse events in any of the 3 tertiles. Medication utilization differed across the SBP tertiles at baseline with a lesser percentage of diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker drugs in the higher tertiles—a finding that reversed during the trial. The beneficial effects of intensive SBP lowering were not modified by the level of baseline SBP. Within the parameters of this population, these findings add support for clinicians to treat blood pressure to goal irrespective of baseline SBP.

Aims To determine whether baseline metabolic syndrome (MetS) modifies the effect of intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, and whether the effects varied by race/ethnicity. Methods We performed post hoc analyses among non‐Hispanic black, non‐hispanic white and Hispanic participants, with and without MetS, in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), who were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group, N = 4544) or an SBP target of <140 mm Hg (standard group, N = 4553). The median follow‐up was 3.26 years. The primary outcome was the composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, non‐myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome or CV death. Results Overall, 3521/9097 participants (38.7%) met the criteria for MetS at baseline. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two SBP target groups within each MetS subgroup, except body mass index was slightly higher in the standard arm of the MetS subgroup (33.3 ± 5.6 vs 33.0 ± 5.3 kg/m 2 ; P < .01), but were similar across treatment arms in the non‐MetS subgroup. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome was similarly reduced in participants with or without baseline MetS: 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57, 0.96) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.57, 0.87), respectively (adjusted P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = .98). Similarly, there was no evidence of treatment × MetS subgroup interaction for all‐cause mortality (adjusted interaction P value = .98). The findings were also similar across race/ethnic subgroups. Conclusions In this analysis the CV benefit of intensive SBP control did not differ among participants by baseline MetS status, regardless of race/ethnicity.

Background: In individuals with a low diastolic blood pressure (DBP), the potential benefits or risks of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering are unclear. Methods: SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was a randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of intensive (target <120 mm Hg) and standard (target <140 mm Hg) SBP control in 9361 older adults with high blood pressure at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease events. All-cause death and incident chronic kidney disease were secondary outcomes. This post hoc analysis examined whether the effects of the SBP intervention differed by baseline DBP. Results: Mean baseline SBP and DBP were 139.7±15.6 and 78.1±11.9 mm Hg, respectively. Regardless of the randomized treatment, baseline DBP had a U-shaped association with the hazard of the primary cardiovascular disease outcome. However, the effects of the intensive SBP intervention on the primary outcome were not influenced by baseline DBP level ( P for interaction=0.83). The primary outcome hazard ratio for intensive versus standard treatment was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.07) in the lowest DBP quintile (mean baseline DBP, 61±5 mm Hg) and 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.90) in the upper 4 DBP quintiles (mean baseline DBP, 82±9 mm Hg), with an interaction P value of 0.78. Results were similar for all-cause death and kidney events. Conclusions: Low baseline DBP was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease events, but there was no evidence that the benefit of the intensive SBP lowering differed by baseline DBP. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

The appropriate target for BP in patients with CKD and hypertension remains uncertain. We report prespecified subgroup analyses of outcomes in participants with baseline CKD in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. We randomly assigned participants to a systolic BP target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group; n =1330) or <140 mm Hg (standard group; n =1316). After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary composite cardiovascular outcome occurred in 112 intensive group and 131 standard group CKD participants (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.63 to 1.05). The intensive group also had a lower rate of all-cause death (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.99). Treatment effects did not differ between participants with and without CKD ( P values for interactions ≥0.30). The prespecified main kidney outcome, defined as the composite of ≥50% decrease in eGFR from baseline or ESRD, occurred in 15 intensive group and 16 standard group participants (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.83). After the initial 6 months, the intensive group had a slightly higher rate of change in eGFR (−0.47 versus −0.32 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year; P <0.03). The overall rate of serious adverse events did not differ between treatment groups, although some specific adverse events occurred more often in the intensive group. Thus, among patients with CKD and hypertension without diabetes, targeting an SBP<120 mm Hg compared with <140 mm Hg reduced rates of major cardiovascular events and all-cause death without evidence of effect modifications by CKD or deleterious effect on the main kidney outcome.

The purpose of this work was to investigate the performance of currently available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting kidney stones, compared to computed tomography (CT) results, and to determine the characteristics of successfully detected stones. Patients who had undergone both abdominal/pelvic CT and MRI exams within 30 days were studied. The images were reviewed by two expert radiologists blinded to the patients’ respective radiological diagnoses. The study consisted of four steps: (1) reviewing the MRI images and determining whether any kidney stone(s) are identified; (2) reviewing the corresponding CT images and confirming whether kidney stones are identified; (3) reviewing the MRI images a second time, armed with the information from the corresponding CT, noting whether any kidney stones are positively identified that were previously missed; (4) for all stones MRI-confirmed on previous steps, the radiologist experts being asked to answer whether in retrospect, with knowledge of size and location on corresponding CT, these stones would be affirmed as confidently identified on MRI or not. In this best-case scenario involving knowledge of stones and their locations on concurrent CT, radiologist experts detected 19% of kidney stones on MRI, with stone size being a major factor for stone identification.

Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has recently been suggested as the imaging modality of choice for kidney stones due to its ability to provide information on stone composition. Standard postprocessing of the dual-energy images accurately identifies uric acid stones, but not other types. Cystine stones can be identified from DECT images when analyzed with advanced postprocessing. This case report describes clinical implications of accurate diagnosis of cystine stones using DECT.

Purpose: Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is an emerging imaging modality with the unique capability of determining urinary stone composition. This study compares radiation exposure of DECT, standard single-energy CT (SECT), and low-dose renal stone protocol single-energy CT (LDSECT) for the evaluation of nephrolithiasis in a single in vivo patient cohort. Materials and Methods: Following institutional review board (IRB) approval, we retrospectively reviewed 200 consecutive DECT examinations performed on patients with suspected urolithiasis over a 6-month period. Of these, 35 patients had undergone examination with our LDSECT protocol, and 30 patients had undergone examination of the abdomen and pelvis with our SECT imaging protocol within 2 years of the DECT examination. The CT dose index volume (CTDI vol ) was used to compare radiation exposure between scans. Image quality was objectively evaluated by comparing image noise. Statistical evaluation was performed using a Student's t -test. Results: DECT performed at 80/140 kVp and 100/140 kVp did not produce a significant difference in radiation exposure compared with LDSECT ( p =0.09 and 0.18, respectively). DECT performed at 80/140 kVp and 100/140 kVp produced an average 40% and 31%, respectively, reduction in radiation exposure compared with SECT ( p <0.001). For patients imaged with the 100/140 kVp protocol, average values for images noise were higher in the LDSECT images compared with DECT images ( p <0.001) and there was no significant difference in image noise between DECT and SECT images in the same patient ( p =0.88). Patients imaged with the 80/140 kVp protocol had equivocal image noise compared with LDSECT images ( p =0.44), however, DECT images had greater noise compared with SECT images in the same patient ( p <0.001). Of the 75 patients included in the study, stone material was available for 16; DECT analysis correctly predicted stone composition in 15/16 patients (93%). Conclusion: DECT provides knowledge of stone composition in addition to the anatomic information provided by LDSECT/SECT without increasing patient radiation exposure and with minimal impact on image noise.

The use of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for evaluating urinary calculi has been appreciated due to the modality’s capability of differentiating between uric acid (UA) and non-UA stones, which are color coded based on a postprocessing algorithm. No other imaging modality or laboratory test is able to identify the stone composition without first attaining the stone material. Knowledge of the stone composition is clinically significant since UA calculi may be treated medically whereas non-UA calculi may require surgical removal. Regardless of the stone type, ureteral stents are often placed to prevent or treat obstruction. Recent work has demonstrated that commonly used stents are also colored based on their dual energy characteristics and may thereby either improve or obscure the identification of adjacent calculi. Herein, we report the case of a 65-year-old man who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy of a large staghorn stone with subsequent significant residual stone fragments noted on a follow-up scan. By using three-dimensional DECT and taking advantage of color contrasting, the stone composition, burden, shape, and boundary were clearly depicted apart from the adjacent stent, resulting in successful medical treatment and obviating the need for further surgical intervention.