Table 3.

Prevalence ratios for clinic and ambulatory BP monitoring phenotypes comparing participants with versus without CKD

BP PhenotypesNumber of ParticipantsPrevalence Ratio (95% CIs)
Without CKD (n=417)With CKD (n=144)Model 1aModel 2bModel 3cModel 4d
Uncontrolled clinic BPe86451.39 (0.99 to 1.95)1.45 (1.03 to 2.04)1.44 (1.02 to 2.02)
Uncontrolled daytime BP170721.19 (0.97 to 1.46)1.26 (1.02 to 1.56)1.23 (1.00 to 1.52)1.08 (0.88 to 1.33)
Uncontrolled nighttime BP2431021.18 (1.02 to 1.37)1.17 (1.01 to 1.36)1.14 (0.98 to 1.33)1.07 (0.92 to 1.24)
Nondipping BP pattern2771111.13 (1.00 to 1.29)1.10 (0.96 to 1.25)1.10 (0.97 to 1.25)1.09 (0.96 to 1.24)
White-coat effecte,f28111.13 (0.58 to 2.19)1.24 (0.63 to 2.46)1.25 (0.66 to 2.39)
Masked uncontrolled hypertensione,f112381.15 (0.86 to 1.53)1.28 (0.96 to 1.69)1.24 (0.94 to 1.64)
Sustained uncontrolled BPe,f58341.53 (1.08 to 2.18)1.65 (1.16 to 2.35)1.66 (1.16 to 2.36)
  • CKD was defined as urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g or eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2.

  • a Model 1 included adjustment for age and sex.

  • b Model 2 included adjustment for age, sex, education, smoking status, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and body mass index.

  • c Model 3 included adjustment for the variables in model 2 and history of stroke, history of myocardial infarction, diabetes, and total and HDL cholesterol.

  • d Model 4 included adjustment for the variables in model 3 and clinic systolic and diastolic BP.

  • e Model 4 not performed because clinic systolic and diastolic BP were used to define these phenotypes.

  • f The prevalence ratios for white-coat effect, masked uncontrolled hypertension, and sustained uncontrolled BP are compared with sustained controlled BP.