Which blood pressure matters: measurement and prognosis

Bottom line

• Hypertension is the rule, not the exception. It affects 80–90% of patients on maintenance hemodialysis and is driven primarily by sodium and volume excess, with vascular stiffening and neurohumoral activation layered on top ^1,2,3,4.
• Measure outside the unit. The 44-hour interdialytic ambulatory recording (ABPM) is the reference standard; home BP over 6–7 days is the practical management metric; averaged intradialytic BP is the acceptable fallback. A home systolic of 141 mmHg identified ambulatory hypertension with 86% sensitivity and 93% specificity ^5,6.
• Peridialytic readings are poor treatment targets. In a head-to-head comparison, neither pre-dialysis (P = 0.17) nor post-dialysis systolic BP (P = 0.997) predicted mortality once home and ambulatory BP were measured, while home and ambulatory BP did ⁷. The pre-dialysis cuff misclassifies about one patient in three ².
• They are not prognostically silent. Low in-center readings mark risk ^8,9,10. The accurate summary: in-center BP is a poor target for chronic treatment and a real signal for the safety of today’s session.
• A high pre-dialysis BP licenses weeks of dry-weight probing, not a hard pull today. In the DRIP trial, approximately 1 kg of additional dry-weight reduction brought approximately 7 mmHg lower ambulatory systolic BP by 4 weeks ¹¹. Within a session, the ultrafiltration rate, not the starting pressure, is what tracks with injury ^12,13,14.

1. How common, and how defined

Hypertension prevalence in maintenance hemodialysis runs 80–90%, depending on the metric used ^1,15. The best single snapshot comes from 48-hour ambulatory monitoring in 396 European patients: 84.3% were hypertensive, and 46.0% were uncontrolled by both in-unit and ambulatory criteria. About one patient in three was misclassified by the pre-dialysis cuff — 18.2% had white-coat hypertension and 14.1% had masked hypertension ² (observational cohort).

The definitions that carry evidence differ by where and when the reading is taken. The thresholds for the out-of-unit methods are lower than the in-unit ones, and the evidence behind them is stronger:

A note on the KDOQI numbers, because they still anchor many unit protocols. The 2005 targets were graded C: opinion-based and extrapolated from the general population ¹⁸. The 2015 KDOQI hemodialysis adequacy update addressed volume and BP control through treatment time, sodium restriction, and ultrafiltration rate but set no numeric BP target. The 2005 numbers were not formally rescinded; they were simply not reaffirmed ¹⁹.

Two related definitions matter for the rest of this module:

• Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) has no consensus definition. Three definitional families exist — nadir-based, delta-based, and intervention- or symptom-based — and they do not identify the same patients ²¹.
• Intradialytic hypertension (IDHTN) is most workably defined, following KDIGO 2020, as a pre-to-post systolic rise of more than 10 mmHg into the hypertensive range in at least 4 of 6 consecutive sessions, which excludes sporadic events ²². See Intradialytic hypertension and the stability trade-off.

2. Why blood pressure is high in kidney failure

The dominant mechanism is sodium and volume excess with a lagged pressure response, layered on vascular stiffening and neurohumoral activation ^1,3. That ordering is clinically useful because it sets the treatment hierarchy: volume first, dialysis prescription second, drugs third ^22,23.

Figure 1 lays out the chain. Loss of kidney sodium excretion leads to interdialytic sodium and water accumulation and extracellular volume expansion. Expansion raises cardiac output and defeats pressure natriuresis; over days to weeks, arteriolar autoregulation then raises peripheral resistance as well. Around that core sit sympathetic overactivity from the failing kidney, renin–angiotensin activation (often paradoxical at low volume), endothelin-1 release with reduced nitric oxide, arterial stiffening, and treatment-related contributors such as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, high-calcium dialysate, and intradialytic sodium gain. The downstream consequences are left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, and cardiovascular events.

flowchart TB
    A["Loss of kidney sodium excretion"] --> B["Interdialytic sodium and water accumulation"]
    B --> C["Extracellular volume expansion"]
    C --> D["Increased cardiac output and<br>pressure-natriuresis failure"]
    D --> E["Sustained elevation of<br>interdialytic blood pressure"]
    C --> F["Arteriolar autoregulation<br>raises peripheral resistance<br>over days to weeks"]
    F --> E
    G["Sympathetic overactivity<br>from the failing kidney"] --> E
    H["Renin-angiotensin activation,<br>often paradoxical at low volume"] --> E
    I["Endothelin-1 release,<br>reduced nitric oxide bioavailability"] --> E
    J["Arterial stiffening, vascular calcification,<br>widened pulse pressure"] --> E
    K["Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents,<br>high-calcium dialysate,<br>intradialytic sodium gain"] --> E
    G ~~~ H ~~~ I ~~~ J ~~~ K
    E --> L["Left ventricular hypertrophy,<br>diastolic dysfunction,<br>cardiovascular events"]
    style A fill:#fff3bf,stroke:#f59f00,color:#000
    style B fill:#ffe8cc,stroke:#e8590c,color:#000
    style C fill:#ffc9c9,stroke:#e03131,color:#000
    style D fill:#ffc9c9,stroke:#e03131,color:#000
    style F fill:#ffc9c9,stroke:#e03131,color:#000
    style G fill:#d0ebff,stroke:#1971c2,color:#000
    style H fill:#d0ebff,stroke:#1971c2,color:#000
    style I fill:#d0ebff,stroke:#1971c2,color:#000
    style J fill:#d0ebff,stroke:#1971c2,color:#000
    style K fill:#d0ebff,stroke:#1971c2,color:#000
    style E fill:#ffa8a8,stroke:#c92a2a,color:#000
    style L fill:#ff6b6b,stroke:#c92a2a,color:#fff

3. The peridialytic reading is not a blood pressure

3.1 The clock

On a thrice-weekly schedule the patient spends two short interdialytic intervals of approximately 44 hours and one long interval of approximately 68 hours off the machine each week. The standard “44-hour ABPM” records the mid-week short interval ⁶. The long interval is when deaths and cardiovascular admissions cluster ²⁴.

Against that clock, consider what the routine readings actually capture. The pre-dialysis value sits at the peak of a 44–68 hour volume cycle, in a patient who may be anxious about cannulation, frequently after a deliberately withheld antihypertensive dose, taken by a machine cuff without standardization. The post-dialysis value sits at the trough of an acute volume contraction, taken minutes after the session and before vascular refilling completes. Neither is a resting, representative pressure.

3.2 How far off, and how often

The consequences are documented, not theoretical:

• In a meta-analysis of paired recordings, pre-dialysis systolic BP overestimated ambulatory systolic BP with limits of agreement of +41.7 to −25.2 mmHg; post-dialysis systolic BP underestimated it with limits of +33.1 to −36.3 mmHg ²⁵.
• In 242 patients compared against 44-hour ABPM, no in-unit metric showed systematic bias on Bland–Altman analysis, but pre- and post-dialysis BP had much wider limits of agreement. Pre-dialysis systolic BP detected ambulatory hypertension with 86.5% sensitivity but only 38.6% specificity ⁶.
• Test–retest reliability runs home > ambulatory >> pre-dialysis > post-dialysis ¹⁷.
• Out-of-unit BP is the superior determinant of left ventricular hypertrophy ²⁶.
• Home BP carries prognostic information that dialysis-unit recordings do not ²⁷; post-dialytic BP remains, in the current literature, “an inaccurate metric” ²⁰.

The same diagnostic-accuracy study ⁶ ranks the in-unit alternatives directly. Only the pre-dialysis reading performs poorly:

flowchart LR
    Q["What is this BP measurement<br>actually telling you?"] --> A["44-hour interdialytic ABPM<br>Reference standard<br>Predicts mortality and LVH"]
    Q --> B["Home BP, 6-7 days<br>Threshold 135/85 or SBP 141<br>Predicts mortality"]
    Q --> C["Averaged intradialytic BP<br>Agrees with 44-h ABPM<br>Acceptable surrogate"]
    Q --> D["Routine pre-dialysis BP<br>Peak of the volume cycle<br>Cannulation anxiety, held meds"]
    Q --> E["Routine post-dialysis BP<br>Trough of acute contraction<br>Least reproducible metric"]
    A --> V1["Valid target for treatment"]
    B --> V1
    C --> V2["Acceptable second-line surrogate"]
    D --> V3["Mortality association U-shaped<br>Not significant vs out-of-unit BP<br>P equals 0.17"]
    E --> V4["No mortality association<br>P equals 0.997"]
    V3 --> X["Volume trend and safety signal only<br>NOT a treatment target<br>NOT a quality measure"]
    V4 --> X
    style Q fill:#e7f5ff,stroke:#1971c2,color:#000
    style A fill:#b2f2bb,stroke:#2f9e44,color:#000
    style B fill:#b2f2bb,stroke:#2f9e44,color:#000
    style C fill:#d0ebff,stroke:#1971c2,color:#000
    style D fill:#ffe8cc,stroke:#e8590c,color:#000
    style E fill:#ffc9c9,stroke:#e03131,color:#000
    style V1 fill:#b2f2bb,stroke:#2f9e44,color:#000
    style V2 fill:#d0ebff,stroke:#1971c2,color:#000
    style V3 fill:#ffe8cc,stroke:#e8590c,color:#000
    style V4 fill:#ffc9c9,stroke:#e03131,color:#000
    style X fill:#ff6b6b,stroke:#c92a2a,color:#fff

4. Home versus in-center: the operational answer

Home BP monitoring is the practical replacement for ABPM. One week of duplicate morning and evening readings on a validated oscillometric device outperformed two weeks of averaged routine peridialytic readings for predicting ambulatory hypertension (AUC 0.934 versus 0.778 for pre-dialysis BP), with an optimal home systolic cut-point of 141.0 mmHg (sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 92.9%) ⁵. Home BP also tracks change: in the DRIP cohort it captured the BP response to dry-weight probing that pre-dialysis readings blurred ¹⁷.

The guidelines have moved the same way. The UK Kidney Association (UKKA) 2025 guideline suggests home or standardized out-of-unit BP to guide treatment (grade 2C) and in-unit BP to judge the safety of the session rather than to manage hypertension (2C) ¹⁵. It sets no home-BP target; a practice point notes that home or standardized systolic BP of approximately 130 mmHg or lower tracks with the lowest risk ¹⁵. The AHA 2023 scientific statement likewise favors out-of-unit measurement ¹.

4.1 Feasibility is answerable

The standing objection is that in-center patients will not measure at home. Two trials say otherwise. HDPAL (randomized) managed 200 in-center patients at a single center to a home BP target of <140/90 mmHg with monthly home monitoring, across an enrollment that ran from 2005 to 2013 ²⁸. A 50-patient pilot randomized trial compared home-BP-guided with pre-dialysis-BP-guided management for 4 months: adherence to home reporting was 97.4%, with no excess of very high or very low pre-dialysis readings, though fatigue was more frequent in the home-BP arm (32% versus 16%) ²⁹.

A workable protocol from the same evidence base: a validated upper-arm oscillometric device, duplicate readings morning and evening, six to seven consecutive days including at least one non-dialysis day, averaged ⁵. KDIGO 2020 also accepts twice-daily readings for 4 days after the midweek treatment ²². Repeat after any major change in dry weight or regimen.

4.2 A practical hierarchy

1. 44-hour ABPM at diagnosis and after major changes in dry weight or regimen.
2. Home BP, ≥6 days, as the routine management metric.
3. Averaged intradialytic BP (all readings, all three weekly sessions) if the first two are unavailable ⁶.
4. Routine pre- and post-dialysis BP: a safety signal and a volume trend, never a treatment target.

5. Does a high pre-dialysis BP predict cardiovascular outcomes?

5.1 As a guide to chronic treatment: poorly

Three cohorts (four analyses), each measuring both in-unit and out-of-unit BP in the same patients, give a consistent answer:

The pattern is the important part. In the same patients, out-of-unit systolic BP relates linearly to death and cardiovascular events while dialysis-unit systolic BP stays U-shaped ^7,31,32. The familiar “reverse epidemiology” curve is largely a property of where and when the reading is taken.

5.2 As a marker of risk: yes, mostly at the low end

Registry analyses show U- or J-shaped associations for peridialytic systolic BP, with the signal dominated by low readings ^9,31,32. That is real information about the patient. It is not information that more antihypertensive treatment or more ultrafiltration will fix.

5.3 Indirectly: yes, in two ways worth acting on

1. A persistently high pre-dialysis BP is a volume hypothesis until proven otherwise. Hypervolemia, marked by flat relative plasma volume slopes, is independently associated with mortality ³⁴.
2. The BP response to volume removal is informative. Patients whose ambulatory BP falls with dry-weight probing were volume-expanded ^11,35. That reframes the pre-dialysis number as a hypothesis to be tested over weeks, not a target to be normalized on the machine.

6. Does a high pre-dialysis BP “allow” you to take more fluid?

Two different questions live inside this one, and they have opposite answers.

6.1 Within a single session: no

There is no evidence that a high starting systolic BP protects against intradialytic injury, and substantial evidence that the rate of removal is associated with harm independent of the starting pressure (all observational):

• In HEMO, an ultrafiltration rate (UFR) >13 mL/h/kg was associated with higher all-cause (adjusted HR 1.59) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 1.71) compared with ≤10 mL/h/kg; 10–13 mL/h/kg carried risk in patients with heart failure ¹².
• In 118,394 patients, UFR >13 (adjusted HR 1.31) and UFR >10 mL/h/kg (adjusted HR 1.22) were both associated with greater mortality, consistently across subgroups and body-size normalizations ¹³. KDIGO 2020 notes associations at rates as low as 6 mL/h/kg ²².
• Ultrafiltration volume is an independent determinant of dialysis-induced regional wall motion abnormalities (myocardial stunning), which were present in 64% of patients and associated with lower ejection fraction and death at 12 months ¹⁴.
• Facility practices around fluid removal correlate with patient outcomes, in both directions ³⁶.

A high starting BP raises the ceiling before the patient reaches a nadir threshold. It does not change plasma refill kinetics, splanchnic sequestration, or myocardial perfusion. The patient with a pre-dialysis systolic BP of 190 mmHg who has 4.5 L pulled in 3.5 hours is still stunning myocardium. Rate and time are covered in Ultrafiltration rate and treatment time.

6.2 Across weeks: yes, and this is the correct use of the observation

DRIP (randomized controlled trial) enrolled 150 hypertensive hemodialysis patients, 100 to dry-weight probing without lengthening sessions and 50 to control ¹¹. The protocol added 0.1 kg per 10 kg body weight per session, halved the step whenever cramps, saline need, or symptomatic hypotension appeared, and declared dry weight reached when even a 0.2 kg step was not tolerated ¹¹:

Intradialytic hypotensive signs and symptoms increased in the probing arm, and no KDQOL quality-of-life domain deteriorated ¹¹. The investigators also recorded at least three serious adverse events likely related to the intervention, including hypotension with seizure ¹¹. That is the real clinical exchange rate: more cramps and dips, occasionally worse, in return for genuine ambulatory BP reduction, with no measurable quality-of-life penalty.

7. Dry weight is not the pre-dialysis BP, and it is not the edema exam

If the pre-dialysis BP is a volume hypothesis, the next question is how to test it. Clinical volume assessment performs poorly. Crackles and peripheral edema share only 12% and 4% of their variance with ultrasound-detected lung water in kidney failure ³⁷. BNP does not function as a volume marker in this population ³⁸. The adjuncts:

None of these tools replaces a planned probing trial judged by out-of-unit BP. Detailed dry-weight practice is covered in Estimating dry weight: assessment, tools, probing; what to do once the measurement is right is covered in Treating hypertension on dialysis.

Evidence gaps

• No randomized trial has tested a home-BP-guided versus pre-dialysis-BP-guided strategy for hard outcomes — only a 50-patient, 4-month feasibility pilot ²⁹.
• No adequately powered trial of a BP target exists in hemodialysis. BID was a 126-patient pilot with a safety signal and no definitive answer ³³; KDIGO 2020 and UKKA 2025 both list target trials as the top research need ^15,22.
• The out-of-unit mortality association is observational ^7,31,32. It is strong prognostic evidence, not proof that lowering out-of-unit BP by any means will save lives.
• How long the BP lag runs after a dry-weight change is unsettled; DRIP found the ambulatory fall by 4 weeks and no support for a longer lag in its population ¹¹.
• Volume tools find congestion but have not improved hard outcomes as protocols ^22,39.
• Whether the mortality benefit of BP lowering holds when achieved by volume rather than drugs has never been directly tested, though DRIP plus the Heerspink meta-analysis make it the most plausible reading ^11,40.

At the chair

References

Adapted from the author’s canonical review Blood Pressure in the Dialysis Patient (reference-checked 2026-09-26; every journal reference matched to its PubMed record). Numbering is local to this page.

1. Bansal N, Artinian NT, Bakris G, et al; American Heart Association Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. Hypertension in patients treated with in-center maintenance hemodialysis: current evidence and future opportunities: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2023;80(6):e112–e122. PMID: 37092336
2. Sarafidis PA, Mallamaci F, Loutradis C, et al. Prevalence and control of hypertension by 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in haemodialysis patients: a study by the European Cardiovascular and Renal Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the ERA-EDTA. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2019;34(9):1542–1548. PMID: 30007295
3. Sarafidis PA, Persu A, Agarwal R, et al. Hypertension in dialysis patients: a consensus document by the European Renal and Cardiovascular Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the ERA-EDTA and the Hypertension and the Kidney working group of the ESH. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32(4):620–640. PMID: 28340239
4. Agarwal R. Hypertension and survival in chronic hemodialysis patients — past lessons and future opportunities. Kidney Int. 2005;67(1):1–13. PMID: 15610223
5. Leonidou K, Georgianos PI, Kollias A, et al. Home versus routine dialysis-unit blood pressure recordings among patients on hemodialysis. J Hum Hypertens. 2025;39(5):355–361. PMID: 40097627
6. Sarafidis P, Theodorakopoulou MP, Loutradis C, et al. Accuracy of peridialytic, intradialytic, and scheduled interdialytic recordings in detecting elevated ambulatory blood pressure in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(5):630–639.e1. PMID: 33857534
7. Agarwal R. Blood pressure and mortality among hemodialysis patients. Hypertension. 2010;55(3):762–768. PMID: 20083728
8. Flythe JE, Xue H, Lynch KE, Curhan GC, Brunelli SM. Association of mortality risk with various definitions of intradialytic hypotension. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(3):724–734. PMID: 25270068
9. Robinson BM, Tong L, Zhang J, et al. Blood pressure levels and mortality risk among hemodialysis patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Kidney Int. 2012;82(5):570–580. PMID: 22718187
10. Dekker M, Konings C, Canaud B, et al. Pre-dialysis fluid status, pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure and outcome in prevalent haemodialysis patients: results of an international cohort study on behalf of the MONDO initiative. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(11):2027–2034. PMID: 29718469
11. Agarwal R, Alborzi P, Satyan S, Light RP. Dry-weight reduction in hypertensive hemodialysis patients (DRIP): a randomized, controlled trial. Hypertension. 2009;53(3):500–507. PMID: 19153263
12. Flythe JE, Kimmel SE, Brunelli SM. Rapid fluid removal during dialysis is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Kidney Int. 2011;79(2):250–257. PMID: 20927040
13. Assimon MM, Wenger JB, Wang L, Flythe JE. Ultrafiltration rate and mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(6):911–922. PMID: 27575009
14. Burton JO, Jefferies HJ, Selby NM, McIntyre CW. Hemodialysis-induced cardiac injury: determinants and associated outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(5):914–920. PMID: 19357245
15. Doulton T, Adam M, Durman K, et al. Management of blood pressure in adults, children and young people on dialysis: UK Kidney Association clinical practice guideline. BMC Nephrol. 2025;26(1):532. PMID: 41013409
16. Iatridi F, Theodorakopoulou MP, Karpetas A, et al. Association of peridialytic, intradialytic, scheduled interdialytic and ambulatory BP recordings with cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients. J Nephrol. 2022;35(3):943–954. PMID: 34988941
17. Agarwal R, Satyan S, Alborzi P, et al. Home blood pressure measurements for managing hypertension in hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol. 2009;30(2):126–134. PMID: 19246891
18. K/DOQI Workgroup. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular disease in dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;45(4 Suppl 3):S1–S153. PMID: 15806502
19. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for hemodialysis adequacy: 2015 update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;66(5):884–930. PMID: 26498416
20. Iatridi F, Theodorakopoulou MP, Sarafidis P. Post-dialytic blood pressure in hemodialysis patients: still an inaccurate metric. Hypertens Res. 2025;48(6):2012–2013. PMID: 40175675
21. Assimon MM, Flythe JE. Definitions of intradialytic hypotension. Semin Dial. 2017;30(6):464–472. PMID: 28691195
22. Flythe JE, Chang TI, Gallagher MP, et al; Conference Participants. Blood pressure and volume management in dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2020;97(5):861–876. PMID: 32278617
23. Agarwal R, Weir MR. Dry-weight: a concept revisited in an effort to avoid medication-directed approaches for blood pressure control in hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(7):1255–1260. PMID: 20507951
24. Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Murray T, Collins AJ. Long interdialytic interval and mortality among patients receiving hemodialysis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1099–1107. PMID: 21992122
25. Agarwal R, Peixoto AJ, Santos SF, Zoccali C. Pre- and postdialysis blood pressures are imprecise estimates of interdialytic ambulatory blood pressure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(3):389–398. PMID: 17699236
26. Agarwal R, Brim NJ, Mahenthiran J, Andersen MJ, Saha C. Out-of-hemodialysis-unit blood pressure is a superior determinant of left ventricular hypertrophy. Hypertension. 2006;47(1):62–68. PMID: 16344376
27. Alborzi P, Patel N, Agarwal R. Home blood pressures are of greater prognostic value than hemodialysis unit recordings. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(6):1228–1234. PMID: 17942773
28. Agarwal R, Sinha AD, Pappas MK, Abraham TN, Tegegne GG. Hypertension in hemodialysis patients treated with atenolol or lisinopril: a randomized controlled trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29(3):672–681. PMID: 24398888
29. Bansal N, Glidden DV, Mehrotra R, et al. Treating home versus predialysis blood pressure among in-center hemodialysis patients: a pilot randomized trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(1):12–22. PMID: 32800842
30. Miskulin DC, Jiang H, Gul A, et al. Comparison of dialysis unit and home blood pressures: an observational cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(5):640–648. PMID: 34144104
31. Bansal N, McCulloch CE, Rahman M, et al; CRIC Study Investigators. Blood pressure and risk of all-cause mortality in advanced chronic kidney disease and hemodialysis: the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study. Hypertension. 2015;65(1):93–100. PMID: 25287404
32. Bansal N, McCulloch CE, Lin F, et al; CRIC Study Investigators. Blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular events in patients on chronic hemodialysis: the CRIC Study (Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort). Hypertension. 2017;70(2):435–443. PMID: 28674037
33. Miskulin DC, Gassman J, Schrader R, et al. BP in dialysis: results of a pilot study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;29(1):307–316. PMID: 29212839
34. Agarwal R. Hypervolemia is associated with increased mortality among hemodialysis patients. Hypertension. 2010;56(3):512–517. PMID: 20625076
35. Sinha AD, Light RP, Agarwal R. Relative plasma volume monitoring during hemodialysis aids the assessment of dry weight. Hypertension. 2010;55(2):305–311. PMID: 20038754
36. Dasgupta I, Thomas GN, Clarke J, et al. Associations between hemodialysis facility practices to manage fluid volume and intradialytic hypotension and patient outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(3):385–393. PMID: 30723164
37. Torino C, Gargani L, Sicari R, et al. The agreement between auscultation and lung ultrasound in hemodialysis patients: the LUST study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(11):2005–2011. PMID: 27660305
38. Agarwal R. B-type natriuretic peptide is not a volume marker among patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(12):3082–3089. PMID: 23525529
39. Zoccali C, Torino C, Mallamaci F, et al. A randomized multicenter trial on a lung ultrasound-guided treatment strategy in patients on chronic hemodialysis with high cardiovascular risk. Kidney Int. 2021;100(6):1325–1333. PMID: 34418415
40. Heerspink HJ, Ninomiya T, Zoungas S, et al. Effect of lowering blood pressure on cardiovascular events and mortality in patients on dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2009;373(9668):1009–1015. PMID: 19249092

Also in this module

Blood pressure, volume, and the dialysis prescription, one question per page.

• Treating hypertension on dialysis: targets, trials, agents, dose timing
• Intradialytic hypertension and the stability trade-off
• Perspective: peridialytic BP as a quality measure
• Estimating dry weight: assessment, tools, probing
• Ultrafiltration rate and treatment time
• Intradialytic hypotension and dialysate cooling
• Dialysate sodium: BP, thirst, IDH, and the RESOLVE question
• Maintenance Hemodialysis — module index
• Hypertension — advanced module