Barriers to blood pressure control and angiotensin enzyme inhibitor use in Canadian patients with chronic renal insufficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for the management of chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) include the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and achieving target blood pressure control. We designed this study to describe the use of these therapeutic strategies, and to investigate barriers to their implementation. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 304 consecutive CRI patients, seen at follow-up in four nephrology clinics across Canada. The use of blood pressure control and antihypertensive medication (AHM) in each of these clinics was recorded, and a questionnaire was administered to nephrologists to determine the basis for decisions concerning AHM regimens and ACEI use/non-use. RESULTS: Mean age was 60.8+/-15.7 years, mean creatinine clearance was 30.3+/-18 ml/min, and underlying renal diseases were similar to registry data. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) achieved was 99.4+/-14.4 and 98.9+/-11.9 mmHg in individuals with >1 and </=1 g/day proteinuria, respectively. When similarly stratified by proteinuria, mean systolic blood pressures were 141.4+/-23.5 and 140.9+/-20.3 mmHg, and mean diastolic blood pressures were 78.4+/-14.0 and 77.9+/-11.4 mmHg, respectively. Blood pressure control, according to published guidelines, was achieved in 128 patients (42.1%). A further 86 (28.3%) patients had their AHM increased. The remaining 90 (29.6%) did not have their AHM increased. Of these, 40 were labelled 'at target blood pressure' (mean MAP 100.5+/-5.4 mmHg), 19 'office hypertension' and 11 'unfavourable risk/benefit ratios'. There were 108/304 (35.5%) patients who were not taking ACEI or ARB (angiotensin receptor antagonist): 34/108 (31%) had previous ACEI failure due to hyperkalaemia (21/108, 19%) or acute renal failure (17/108, 16%), and 61/108 (55%) were felt 'unlikely to benefit' (categories not mutually exclusive). Miscommunication with the primary physician and medication costs were not identified as significant barriers to improved blood pressure control or ACEI use. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 40% of CRI patients are achieving current blood pressure goals and 64% are prescribed ACEI/ARB in tertiary care nephrology clinics. Although the use of these strategies may be increasing, there remains room for improvement. Physicians should remain aware of the need to use these proven strategies in patients with CRI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".