Systemic arterial hypertension in children following renal transplantation: prevalence and risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Control of blood pressure (BP) following renal transplantation may improve allograft and patient survival. Our aims were (i) to describe the distribution of BP and the prevalence of systolic and/or diastolic hypertension in children over the first 5 years following renal transplantation and (ii) to evaluate clinical risk factors and centre-specific factors associated with hypertension in this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case note review of all current paediatric kidney transplant patients in the UK, with data collected at 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years following transplantation in subjects with hypertension (systolic and/or diastolic BP > 95th > ) and non-hypertensive subjects BP ≤ 95th > . RESULTS: In total, 27.3% (117/428), 27.6% (118/428), 26.0% (95/365) and 25.6% (50/195) of the patients were hypertensive (systolic and/or diastolic BP > 95th > ) at 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years following transplantation, respectively. A total of 58.4% of the patients at 6 months, 52.8% at 1 year, 48.2% at 2 years and 48.2% at 5 years were receiving anti-hypertensive therapy, of whom 31.6-36.6% remained hypertensive. When subjects were identified as being hypertensive, on anti-hypertensive medication or had untreated hypertension (systolic and/or diastolic BP > 95th > ), 66.4, 61.0, 56.4 and 55.9% of patients were hypertensive at 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years, respectively. In a multivariate model, odds ratios for systolic hypertension were 4.16 (deceased versus living donor), 2.65 (lowest versus highest quartile of height z-score) and 2.07 (if on anti-hypertensive; yes versus no). There was significant variation in prevalent rates of hypertension between centres (P < 0.0001) that remained significant (P = 0.003) after adjustment for all the factors in the multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: Control of BP after kidney transplantation remains sub-optimal in paediatric centres in the UK. Just over 25% of patients remain hypertensive 5 years following transplantation. Significant differences between centres remain unexplained and may reflect differences in assessment and management of hypertension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".