www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Optimal blood pressure for patients

with chronic kidney disease:
a nationwide population‑based
cohort study
You‑Bin Lee1,2,4, Ji Sung Lee3,4, So‑hyeon Hong1, Jung A. Kim1, Eun Roh1, Hye Jin Yoo1,
Sei Hyun Baik1 & Kyung Mook Choi1*
The effect of blood pressure (BP) on the incident cardiovascular events, progression to end-stage
renal disease (ESRD) and mortality were evaluated among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients
with and without antihypertensive treatment. This nationwide study used the Korean National
Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort data. The hazards of outcomes were analysed
according to the systolic BP (SBP) or diastolic BP (DBP) among adults (aged ≥ 40 years) with CKD and
without previous cardiovascular disease or ESRD (n = 22,278). The SBP and DBP were ≥ 130 mmHg
and ≥ 80 mmHg in 10,809 (48.52%) and 11,583 (51.99%) participants, respectively. During a median
6.2 years, 1271 cardiovascular events, 201 ESRD incidents, and 1061 deaths were noted. Individuals
with SBP ≥ 130 mmHg and DBP ≥ 80 mmHg had higher hazards of hypertension-related adverse
outcomes compared to the references (SBP 120–129 mmHg and DBP 70–79 mmHg). SBP < 100 mmHg
was associated with hazards of all-cause death, and composite of ESRD and all-cause death during
follow-up only among the antihypertensive medication users suggesting that the BP should
be < 130/80 mmHg and the SBP should not be < 100 mmHg with antihypertensive agents to prevent
the adverse outcome risk of insufficient and excessive antihypertensive treatment in CKD patients.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health concern closely related to the risk of cardiovascular
disease, progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and premature ­mortality1,2. Hypertension is commonly
accompanied by CKD and an important modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular events and CKD ­progression3.
Therefore, controlling the blood pressure (BP) within an optimal range is a major public health priority and an
important clinical concern for a patient with CKD.
Although reports including observational studies, clinical trials, and clinical practice guidelines, attempted
to establish an optimal BP target among the CKD p ­ atients4–13, a definite consensus has not been a­ chieved14,15
even in more recently released guidelines including the 2017 American Heart Association/American College
of Cardiology (AHA/ACC)12 and the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension
(ESC/ESH)13 guidelines for managing hypertension. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)
guideline recommends BP ≤ 140/90 mmHg for CKD patients with urine albumin excretion rate < 30 mg/24 h
and ≤ 130/80 mmHg for CKD patients with moderately or severely increased ­albuminuria5. Although these rec-
ommendations have been accepted as reasonable, the supporting evidence was considered to be i­ nsufficient5,15.
In contrast, the Eighth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High
Blood Pressure (JNC 8)10 recommended BP < 140/90 mmHg for hypertensive adults with CKD, and the target BP
did not vary according to the albuminuria status. In contrast, among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular
events but without diabetes from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), targeting a systolic
BP (SBP) < 120 mmHg, compared with < 140 mmHg, was associated with lower rates of major cardiovascular
events and death from any cause, and no significant effect modification was observed according to the presence
of ­CKD11. However, the lower limit of the BP target was not clearly defined. Furthermore, outcome trials or

1
Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital,
Korea University College of Medicine, 148 Gurodong‑ro, Guro‑gu, Seoul  08308, Republic of Korea. 2Division of
Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University
School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3Clinical Research Center, Asan Medical Center, College of
Medicine, Ulsan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4These authors contributed equally: You-Bin Lee, and Ji Sung
Lee. *email: [email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1538 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81328-y 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  Flow diagram of the study population. Abbreviations: eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate.

large-scale observational studies that evaluated an optimal BP target for CKD populations are extremely limited
in ­Asia16.
Therefore, to identify the optimal BP in patients with CKD with respect to the risk of hypertension-related
adverse outcomes, we aimed to (1) assess the distribution of BP levels and (2) compare the hazards of composite
of progression to ESRD and all-cause death (primary outcome); all-cause death, and compositive of cardiovas-
cular events and ESRD (secondary outcomes) during follow-up according to the baseline BP ranges among the
individuals with CKD using the Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS) database.

Results
Baseline characteristics of the study population.  The study included 22,278 participants (Fig.  1).
Among them, 12,174 were non-users and 10,104 were users of antihypertensive medications. The baseline char-
acteristics of the total population and those of users and non-users of antihypertensive medications are summa-
rised (Table 1). The mean age of the participants was 63.3 years, and 48.6% of these participants were men. The
mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 41.7 ml/min/1.73 m ­ 2 for the total population, and 5.9%
of the population showed urine dipstick positivity for protein. The mean age, proportion of women, proportion
of individuals with low-income status, prevalence of dyslipidaemia and diabetes mellitus (DM), and eGFR were
higher among the users than among the non-users.
Of the 22,278 (100%) participants, 4360 (19.6%) had an SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, and 10,809 (48.5%) had an
SBP ≥ 130 mmHg. A total of 3016 (13.5%) participants had a diastolic BP (DBP) ≥ 90 mmHg, while 11,583
(52.0%) had a DBP ≥ 80 mmHg. Furthermore, of the 10,104 (100%) users of antihypertensive medications, 2703
(26.8%) had an SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, while 5920 (58.6%) had an SBP ≥ 130 mmHg. When the distribution of DBP
was assessed among the antihypertensive users, the DBP was ≥ 90 mmHg in 1728 (17.1%) and ≥ 80 mmHg in
5792 (57.3%) users.

Primary and secondary outcomes according to the categories of the SBP.  During a median fol-
low-up of 6.2 (interquartile range: 5.6–6.5) years, 1225 primary outcomes (the composite of ESRD and all-cause
death) were observed. Individually, 1271 cardiovascular events, 201 incident ESRD cases, and 1061 all-cause
deaths were noted. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary and secondary
outcomes are presented according to the prespecified SBP categories (Tables 2, and supplementary Table S2).
When the SBP category of 120–129 mmHg was set as the reference, the SBP category of ≥ 140 mmHg was associ-
ated with higher hazards of the primary outcome (Table 2) and all-cause death (supplementary Table S2) dur-
ing follow-up in the total population, and SBP category of ≥ 130 mmHg was associated with a higher hazard of
composite of cardiovascular events and ESRD (supplementary Table S2) during follow-up in the total popula-
tion. When stratified analyses according to the antihypertensive medication use were conducted, the individu-
als with SBP < 100 mmHg showed significantly higher hazards of the primary outcome (Table 2) and all-cause
death (supplementary Table S2) during follow-up than those with SBP of 120–129 mmHg among the users of
antihypertensive agents.

Primary and secondary outcomes according to the DBP categories.  The HRs (95% CIs) of
primary and secondary outcomes were presented according to the prespecified DBP categories (Table 3, and
supplementary Table  S3). Compared with the DBP category of 70–79  mmHg (reference), the DBP category
of ≥ 90 mmHg was associated with higher hazards of the primary outcome (composite of ESRD and all-cause
death), and composite of cardiovascular events and ESRD during follow-up in the total population. The DBP
category of ≥ 80 mmHg was associated with a higher hazard of all-cause death during follow-up than the refer-
ence range (DBP: 70–79 mmHg).

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1538 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81328-y 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Total Non-users Users

n = 22,278 n = 12,174 n = 10,104
Age (years) 63.3 ± 10.4 59.8 ± 10.0 67.4 ± 9.2
Men [n (%)] 10,836 (48.6) 6273 (51.5) 4563 (45.2)
Low-income status (lower 20%) [n (%)] 3008 (13.5) 1472 (12.1) 1536 (15.2)
Current smoker [n (%)] 2940 (13.2) 1926 (15.8) 1014 (10.0)
Heavy alcohol consumption [n (%)] 641 (2.9) 403 (3.3) 238 (2.4)
Regular exercise [n (%)] 4865 (21.8) 2764 (22.7) 2101 (20.8)
BMI (kg/m2) 24.3 ± 3.0 23.8 ± 2.8 24.9 ± 3.1
Waist circumference (cm)
In men 85.5 ± 7.2 84.2 ± 6.8 87.3 ± 7.4
In women 80.8 ± 8.4 78.5 ± 7.8 83.2 ± 8.3
Systolic BP (mmHg) 127.2 ± 15.6 124.2 ± 14.9 130.9 ± 15.7
Diastolic BP (mmHg) 77.8 ± 10.0 76.9 ± 9.9 79.0 ± 10.0
Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dl) 104.0 ± 28.6 100.5 ± 24.5 108.3 ± 32.2
Total cholesterol (mg/dl) 202.6 ± 39.2 206.5 ± 37.9 198.0 ± 40.2
Triglyceride (mg/dl) 150.0 ± 94.1 144.4 ± 98.5 156.7 ± 88.1
HDL-C (mg/dl) 57.0 ± 50.6 60.2 ± 60.2 53.2 ± 35.5
LDL-C (mg/dl) 120.6 ± 37.0 124.6 ± 34.7 115.8 ± 39.0
Dyslipidaemia [n (%)] 10,913 (49.0) 4783 (39.3) 6130 (60.7)
Diabetes mellitus [n (%)] 5718 (25.7) 2096 (17.2) 3622 (35.8)
Proteinuria (urine dipstick positivity) [n (%)] 1320 (5.9) 425 (3.5) 895 (8.9)
eGFR (ml/min/1.73 ­m2) 41.7 ± 20.8 38.2 ± 23.3 45.9 ± 16.4
Categorization according to the baseline eGFR
30 ≤ eGFR < 60 (ml/min/1.73 ­m2) [n (%)] 16,822 (75.5) 8118 (66.7) 8704 (86.1)
eGFR < 30 (ml/min/1.73 ­m2) [n (%)] 5456 (24.5) 4056 (33.3) 1400 (13.9)

Table 1.  Baseline characteristics of the study participants according to antihypertensive agent use. BMI body
mass index, BP blood pressure, HDL-C high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation
(continuous variables) or n (%) (categorical variables).

Discussion
In this nationwide population-based longitudinal study, including 22,278 participants with CKD, an
SBP ≥ 130 mmHg was associated with significantly higher hazards of hypertension-related adverse outcomes
compared with the reference range of 120–129 mmHg, while a DBP ≥ 80 mmHg was associated with higher
hazards of hypertension-related adverse outcomes compared with the reference range of 70–79 mmHg. Never-
theless, approximately half of the participants exhibited an SBP ≥ 130 mmHg and DBP ≥ 80 mmHg. Among the
antihypertensive medication users, an SBP < 100 mmHg was associated with a significant increase in the hazards
of all-cause death, and composite of ESRD and all-cause death during follow-up.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the distribution of the SBP and DBP in a
large-scale nationwide population with CKD in Asia. In this study, the SBP was ≥ 140 mmHg in 19.6% of the
participants, and the DBP was ≥ 90 mmHg in 13.5% of the participants. When the distribution of the BP was
evaluated among antihypertensive medication users only, 26.8% of the patients had an SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, while
17.1% had a DBP ≥ 90 mmHg. When the threshold BP was changed to 130/80 mmHg, almost half (48.5%) of the
total participants showed an SBP ≥ 130 mmHg, and more than half (52.0%) exhibited a DBP ≥ 80 mmHg. The
SBP was ≥ 130 mmHg in almost 60% of the antihypertensive medication users, and the DBP was ≥ 80 mmHg in
a similar proportion of the antihypertensive medication users. These results suggest that the BP control status
may be insufficient in a substantial proportion of the patients with CKD.
Over the past few decades, several studies attempted to address the optimal target ranges of the BP in the CKD
­population4–11. However, a definite consensus was not achieved, even among the clinical practice ­guidelines5,9,10.
Recently, the SPRINT reported that an SBP target < 120 mmHg led to a decrease in the incidence of major car-
diovascular events and death compared with an SBP < 140 mmHg among patients at high risk of cardiovascular
­events11. However, until recently, the extent to which the results from the SPRINT study should be applied to
people with CKD, especially those with more progressed disease (eGFR < 45 ml/min/1.73 ­m2), is still under
­debate17. While the balance of risk and benefit of intensive BP control may differ across eGFR levels, the mean
eGFR in the SPRINT participants with CKD was 48 ml/min/1.73 m ­ 211, which was more favourable than that
in our study (41.7 ml/min/1.73 m ­ 2). A post hoc analysis of the SPRINT study suggested an attenuation of the
cardiovascular benefit from intensive treatment with lower eGFR, and no apparent net benefit was observed
among 891 participants with an eGFR of < 45 ml/min/1.73 m ­ 218. In our study, 24.5% of the participants had an
2
eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 ­m , and a BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg versus the reference range (120–129/70–79 mmHg) was

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1538 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81328-y 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Composite of end-stage renal disease and all-cause death

Follow-up duration (person- Incidence rate (per 1000
Categories of SBP (mmHg) Events (n) years) person-years) Adjusted HR (95% CI)*
Total
 < 100 (n = 389) 13 2337 5.56 (3.23–9.58) 0.936 (0.535–1.638)
100–109 (n = 1546) 51 9280 5.50 (4.18–7.23) 0.961 (0.708–1.303)
110–119 (n = 4285) 160 25,780 6.21 (5.32–7.25) 0.905 (0.739–1.109)
120–129 (n = 5249) 227 31,426 7.22 (6.34–8.23) 1 (Ref.)
130–139 (n = 6449) 357 38,610 9.25 (8.34–10.26) 1.126 (0.953–1.330)
140–149 (n = 2230) 191 12,989 14.70 (12.76–16.95) 1.443 (1.190–1.751)
 ≥ 150 (n = 2130) 226 12,374 18.26 (16.03–20.81) 1.502 (1.247–1.811)
P for trend  < 0.0001
Non-users of antihypertensive agent
 < 100 (n = 299) 0 1829 0 0.078 (0.005–1.257)
100–109 (n = 1139) 15 6929 2.16 (1.31–3.59) 0.679 (0.391–1.178)
110–119 (n = 2827) 57 17,193 3.32 (2.56–4.30) 0.889 (0.627–1.259)
120–129 (n = 3020) 71 18,344 3.87 (3.07–4.88) 1 (Ref.)
130–139 (n = 3232) 103 19,698 5.23 (4.31–6.34) 1.173 (0.866–1.587)
140–149 (n = 880) 45 5284 8.52 (6.36–11.41) 1.489 (1.025–2.164)
 ≥ 150 (n = 777) 54 4627 11.67 (8.94–15.24) 1.744 (1.222–2.490)
P for trend  < 0.0001
Users of antihypertensive agent
 < 100 (n = 90) 13 508 25.58 (14.86–44.06) 2.023 (1.158–3.535)
100–109 (n = 407) 36 2351 15.32 (11.05–21.23) 1.303 (0.908–1.871)
110–119 (n = 1458) 103 8587 12.00 (9.89–14.55) 0.948 (0.739–1.217)
120–129 (n = 2229) 156 13,082 11.92 (10.19–13.95) 1 (Ref.)
130–139 (n = 3217) 254 18,912 13.43 (11.88–15.19) 1.084 (0.888–1.324)
140–149 (n = 1350) 146 7705 18.95 (16.11–22.29) 1.371 (1.093–1.720)
 ≥ 150 (n = 1353) 172 7747 22.20 (19.12–25.78) 1.376 (1.106–1.711)
P for trend 0.0022

Table 2.  Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of composite of end-stage renal disease
and all-cause mortality according to the categories of systolic blood pressure among the individuals with
chronic kidney disease. SBP systolic blood pressure, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval. *Adjusted for
age, sex, current smoking, alcohol consumption, regular exercise, household income level, body mass index,
presence of dyslipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and urine dipstick positivity for protein. Adjusted HRs (95% CIs)
and P-values, considered to be statistically significant in bold font.

associated with increased hazards of hypertension-related adverse outcomes, suggesting that the optimal BP
range may be less than this level.
Here, an SBP < 100 mmHg was related to the hazards of all-cause death, and composite of ESRD and all-cause
death during follow-up in patients treated with antihypertensive medications but not in individuals without
antihypertensive therapy. Recently, Jung et al. reported different patterns of the association between the BP and
adverse outcomes according to antihypertensive medication use in 492,540 Korean adults without pre-existing
cardiorenal ­diseases19. In their study, the associations between the BP and adverse outcomes were linear or flat
and then increasing among the non-users of antihypertensive agents but J-shaped among the active antihyperten-
sive users. According to Jung et al.19, among the active users of antihypertensive agents, the risk for a composite of
cardiovascular and renal outcomes increased in the individuals with SBP values < 115 mmHg and > 135 mmHg,
and the risk for early all-cause death increased in those with SBP values < 125 mmHg and > 135 or 145 mmHg.
Consistent with the results of a previous study, our study showed that the association of hazards for all-cause
death, and composite of ESRD and all-cause death during follow-up with an SBP < 100 mmHg was found only
among CKD patients using antihypertensive agents. These results suggest that an excessive BP lowering with
antihypertensive medications may increase the risk of adverse outcomes also in individuals with CKD. The
SBP cut-off was lower in the present study including only CKD patients (SBP < 100 mmHg) compared with
that reported in a previous study including healthy individuals (SBP < 115–125 mmHg). Likewise, a J-shaped
association of both the SBP and DBP with mortality has been reported for 651,749 U.S. veterans with CKD, and
53.7%, 49.7%, and 34.2% of them were taking renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-
blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, r­ espectively8. They reported that SBP of 140–160 mmHg and DBP of
80–90 mmHg were associated with best o ­ utcomes8 showing higher BP thresholds than our results. In their s­ tudy8,
patients with “ideal” BP (< 130/80 mmHg) demonstrated increased mortality rates possibly due to the inclusion
of patients with low SBP and DBP. Another observational study including 2655 Japanese outpatients with CKD
under nephrologist care showed that SBP < 110 mmHg and DBP < 70 mmHg increased risks of cardiovascular

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1538 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81328-y 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Composite of end-stage renal disease and all-cause death

Follow-up duration (person- Incidence rate (per 1000
Categories of DBP (mmHg) Events (n) years) person-years) Adjusted HR (95% CI)*
Total
 < 60 (n = 358) 26 2081 12.49 (8.51–18.35) 1.401 (0.940–2.088)
60–69 (n = 2964) 141 17,632 8.00 (6.78–9.43) 1.022 (0.840–1.243)
70–79 (n = 7373) 346 44,082 7.85 (7.06–8.72) 1 (Ref.)
80–89 (n = 8567) 452 51,341 8.80 (8.03–9.65) 1.150 (0.999–1.322)
90–99 (n = 2230) 184 13,040 14.11 (12.21–16.30) 1.458 (1.218–1.746)
 ≥ 100 (n = 786) 76 4619 16.45 (13.14–20.60) 1.733 (1.350–2.224)
P for trend  < 0.0001
Non-users of antihypertensive agent
 < 60 (n = 214) 6 1274 4.71 (2.12–10.48) 1.087 (0.478–2.471)
60–69 (n = 1863) 35 11,306 3.10 (2.22–4.31) 0.762 (0.522–1.113)
70–79 (n = 4306) 115 26,129 4.40 (3.67–5.28) 1 (Ref.)
80–89 (n = 4503) 122 27,468 4.44 (3.72–5.30) 1.008 (0.781–1.301)
90–99 (n = 927) 50 5536 9.03 (6.85–11.92) 1.631 (1.169–2.275)
 ≥ 100 (n = 361) 17 2190 7.76 (4.83–12.49) 1.451 (0.870–2.417)
P for trend 0.0145
Users of antihypertensive agent
 < 60 (n = 144) 20 807 24.79 (15.99–38.43) 1.477 (0.935–2.333)
60–69 (n = 1101) 106 6326 16.76 (13.85–20.27) 1.141 (0.906–1.437)
70–79 (n = 3067) 231 17,953 12.87 (11.31–14.64) 1 (Ref.)
80–89 (n = 4064) 330 23,873 13.82 (12.41–15.40) 1.192 (1.007–1.410)
90–99 (n = 1303) 134 7504 17.86 (15.08–21.15) 1.345 (1.087–1.665)
 ≥ 100 (n = 425) 59 2429 24.29 (18.82–31.35) 1.825 (1.370–2.431)
P for trend 0.0042

Table 3.  Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of composite of end-stage renal disease
and all-cause mortality according to the categories of diastolic blood pressure among the individuals with
chronic kidney disease. DBP diastolic blood pressure, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval. *Adjusted for
age, sex, current smoking, alcohol consumption, regular exercise, household income level, body mass index,
presence of dyslipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and urine dipstick positivity for protein. Adjusted HRs (95% CIs)
and P-values, considered to be statistically significant in bold font.

events and all-cause ­death20. However, these studies included only elderly veterans (mean age 73.8 years)8 or
outpatients under nephrologist care from only 11 ­hospitals20. Moreover, both of these ­studies8,20 did not consider
the possible differential impacts of BP on outcomes according to antihypertensive medication use.
There are several limitations of this study. First, although we tried to adjust for potential confounders, the
effect of residual unmeasured confounders may remain. Second, BP measurement devices were heterogenous
across institutions. However, quality assessments are applied to the BP measurement instruments in all health
examination institutions according to the Basic Act on National Health Examination in Korea. Third, the present
data did not include the ambulatory or home BP measurements. Fourth, categories of BP were defined based on
BP measurements at a single timepoint. Repeated visit measurements and changes in BP during follow-up were
not reflected due to the unavailability of the data in most of the participants. However, previous large epidemio-
logical studies on the association between BP and adverse outcomes also utilized a single BP measurement to
produce meaningful r­ esults21–23. In a study that compared statistical models that use simple summary measures
of the repeat information on SBP (including baseline only and cumulative mean), against more complex methods
that model the repeat ­information24, in comparison with the baseline-only model, modest benefits were observed
using the cumulative mean of SBP, but any of the other complex methods demonstrated little further improve-
ment. Fifth, CKD was defined only based on the eGFR; we could not reflect other features to characterise CKD,
including albuminuria because except for the urine dipstick positivity for protein, the quantitative measures of
albuminuria were not evaluated. Lastly, our study population consisted of Korean adults; thus, our results should
be extrapolated to other ethnic groups with caution.
Our study has major strengths, including a comparatively large nationwide population across a broad age
spectrum, high rates of participation, standardised data collection methods, an adequate follow-up period, and
availability of comprehensive possible confounding factors, which support the validity of our results. Stratified
analysis according to the antihypertensive medication use provided insights on the effect of BP lowering with
antihypertensive agents and lower limit of BP targets. Our results may provide suggestions on the BP targets for
Asian CKD patients, which have been lacking in relevant evidence.
This nationwide longitudinal population-based cohort study demonstrated that a BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg was
associated with higher hazards of hypertension-related adverse outcomes compared with the reference range
of 120–129/70–79 mmHg in adults with CKD. In approximately 50% of the Korean adults with CKD, SBP

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1538 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81328-y 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

was ≥ 130 mmHg and DBP was ≥ 80 mmHg. Among the CKD patients using antihypertensive medications, those
with an SBP < 100 mmHg showed higher hazards of all-cause death, and composite of ESRD and all-cause death
during follow-up. These findings suggest that it would be appropriate to target the BP to < 130/80 mmHg and not
to lower the SBP to < 100 mmHg with antihypertensive agents to prevent the risk of adverse outcomes associated
with insufficient and excessive BP lowering among CKD patients aged ≥ 40 years. In this respect, the BP control
status of Korean CKD patients need to be optimized. Further research is required to evaluate the optimal blood
pressure target according to comorbidities and medications in patients with hypertension.

Methods
Data sources.  The KNHIS-Health Screening Cohort (NHIS-HEALS) data from January 2002 to December
2015 were used in this study. Supplementary Appendix 1 provides details on the KNHIS and the NHIS-HEALS
data. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Korea University (IRB file number:
2019GR0125). The requirement for obtaining informed consent was waived by the IRB of Korea University
because the KNHIS provided the researchers with anonymized de-identified data. All methods were carried out
in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Study cohort, outcomes, and follow‑up.  In this nationwide longitudinal population-based cohort
study, individuals aged ≥ 40  years with CKD at baseline who underwent ≥ one national health examination
between January 2009 and December 2010 were included. CKD was defined as the eGFR < 60  ml/min/1.73
­m2. The time-point of the examination conducted between 2009 and 2010 was considered as the baseline. The
individuals with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) (ICD-10 codes I21–22), stroke (ICD-10 codes I63–64),
heart failure (HF) (ICD-10 code I50), and/or ESRD at or before baseline, and those with malignancies (ICD-10
codes C00-C97) throughout the study period were excluded. The individuals who cannot be classified as users
or non-users of antihypertensive medications and those with missing data for at least one variable were also
excluded (Fig. 1).
The primary outcome was the composite of ESRD and all-cause death during follow-up. The secondary out-
comes were all-cause death, and composite of cardiovascular events and ESRD during follow-up. The individuals
with ESRD were defined as (1) those with one or more claims under ICD-10 codes N18–19 and who underwent
haemodialysis (≥ 90 days), peritoneal dialysis (≥ 90 days), or kidney transplantation and/or (2) those who have
had the health insurance benefit of relieved Co-payment Policy in Korea for ESRD, which is a welfare system
in Korea aimed at reducing the related medical expenses for registered patients with certain severe illnesses,
including ­ESRD25. Cardiovascular events were defined as a composite of newly diagnosed MI, stroke, and hospi-
talization for HF (hHF). Referring to the previous ­studies23,26, MI was identified as the recording of ICD-10 codes
I21 or I22 during hospitalisation or claims made ≥ two times under those codes, while stroke was defined as the
recording of ICD-10 codes I63 or I64 during hospitalisation with claims for brain magnetic resonance imaging or
brain computed tomography. The hHF was defined as ≥ one hospitalisation under a primary diagnosis of ICD-10
code I50, as mentioned in the previous s­ tudies27–29. The study population was followed-up from baseline to the
date of death, development of endpoint disease, or December 31, 2015, whichever came first.

Measurements and definitions.  Questionnaires were used to obtain information on the smoking status
(never, past, or current), alcohol consumption, and regular exercise. Definitions of heavy alcohol consumption,
regular exercise, low income status, and body mass index (BMI) are summarized in supplementary Table  1.
eGFR was calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration ­equations30,31. Blood tests
were performed using venous samples drawn after overnight fasting. These health examinations were conducted
only in hospitals certified by the KNHIS. The presence of DM and dyslipidaemia was defined according to a
previous ­study26.
During health examinations performed in hospitals certified by the KNHIS, the BP was measured by quali-
fied medical personnel using sphygmomanometers or oscillometric devices at brachial levels after 5 min of rest
in a sitting position.
The participants were stratified into two groups according to antihypertensive medication ­use19. The indi-
viduals who had been prescribed with antihypertensive medications for ≥ 180 days in the previous year from
the baseline were categorised as users. Non-users were defined as those who (1) had been prescribed with anti-
hypertensive medications for < 90 days in the previous year from the baseline and (2) had not been prescribed
any antihypertensive medications in the past 6 months from the baseline.

Statistical analyses.  Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (Version 9·3, SAS Institute,
Cary, NC, USA). Two-sided p-values < 0.05 were considered significant. The baseline characteristics of the study
population were analysed in the total population and among users and non-users of antihypertensive agents.
The continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, whereas the categorical variables were
presented as frequencies and percentages.
The incidence rates of outcomes were calculated as the number of incident cases divided by the follow-up
duration (person-years). Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to calculate the HRs (95% CIs)
for the outcome incidence according to the prespecified categories of baseline SBP or DBP. The prespecified SBP
categories were < 100, 100–109, 110–119, 120–129, 130–139, 140–149, and ≥ 150 mmHg, while the DBP categories
were < 60, 60–69, 70–79, 80–89, 90–99, and ≥ 100 mmHg. Regression models were adjusted for age, sex, current
smoking, alcohol consumption, regular exercise, household income level, BMI, presence of dyslipidaemia, DM,
and urine dipstick positivity for protein. Stratified analyses according to antihypertensive medication use were
additionally performed.

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1538 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81328-y 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Data availability.  The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Korean National
Health Insurance Service (KNHIS) but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under
license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon
reasonable request and with permission of the KNHIS.

Received: 19 September 2020; Accepted: 6 January 2021

References
1. Couser, W. G., Remuzzi, G., Mendis, S. & Tonelli, M. The contribution of chronic kidney disease to the global burden of major
noncommunicable diseases. Kidney Int. 80, 1258–1270. https​://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2011.368 (2011).
2. Perico, N. & Remuzzi, G. Chronic kidney disease: a research and public health priority. Nephrol. Dialysis Transpl. Off. Publ. Eur.
Dialysis. Transpl. Assoc. Eur. Renal Assoc. 27(3), 19–26. https​://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfs28​4 (2012).
3. Roehm, B. & Weiner, D. E. Blood pressure targets and kidney and cardiovascular disease: same data but discordant guidelines.
Curr. Opin. Nephrol. Hypertens. 28, 245–250. https​://doi.org/10.1097/mnh.00000​00000​00049​2 (2019).
4. Verbeke, F. et al. A European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement on the kidney disease: improving global outcomes
(KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease:
an endorsement with some caveats for real-life application. Nephrol. Dialysis Transpl. Off. Publ. Eur. Dialysis Transpl. Assoc. Eur.
Renal Assoc. 29, 490–496. https​://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gft32​1 (2014).
5. Taler, S. J. et al. KDOQI US commentary on the 2012 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for management of blood pressure in
CKD. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 62, 201–213. https​://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.03.018 (2013).
6. Townsend, R. R. Blood pressure targets in CKD. Adv. Chronic Kidney Dis. 22, 96–101. https​://doi.org/10.1053/j.ackd.2014.08.001
(2015).
7. Anderson, A. H. et al. Time-updated systolic blood pressure and the progression of chronic kidney disease: a cohort study. Ann.
Intern. Med. 162, 258–265. https​://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0488 (2015).
8. Kovesdy, C. P. et al. Blood pressure and mortality in U.S. veterans with chronic kidney disease: a cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med.
159, 233–242. https​://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-4-20130​8200-00004​ (2013).
9. Williams, B. et al. Practice Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension and the
European Society of Cardiology: ESH/ESC Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. J. Hypertens. 36, 2284–2309.
https​://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.00000​00000​00196​1 (2018).
10. James, P. A. et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel mem-
bers appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 311, 507–520. https​://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.28442​7
(2014).
11. Group, S. R. et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. New Engl. J. Med. 373, 2103–2116. https​
://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMo​a1511​939 (2015).
12. Whelton, P. K. et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention,
detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American
Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. Hypertension (Dallas, TX: 1979) 71, e13–e115. https:​ //doi.org/10.1161/
hyp.00000​00000​00006​5 (2018).
13. Williams, B. et al. 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management
of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: The Task Force for
the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J.
Hypertens. 36, 1953–2041. https​://doi.org/10.1097/hjh.00000​00000​00194​0 (2018).
14. Kollias, A., Kyriakoulis, K. G. & Stergiou, G. S. Blood pressure target for hypertension in chronic kidney disease: One size does
not fit all. J. Clin. Hypertens. (Greenwich) 22, 929–932. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jch.13861​ (2020).
15. Georgianos, P. I., Vaios, V., Zebekakis, P. E. & Liakopoulos, V. Blood pressure targets in patients with chronic kidney disease: a
critical evaluation of clinical-trial evidence and guideline recommendations. J. Clin. Hypertens. (Greenwich) 22, 924–928. https​://
doi.org/10.1111/jch.13859​(2020).
16. Huang, Q. F. et al. Management of hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease in Asia. Curr. Hypertens. Rev. 12, 181–185.
https​://doi.org/10.2174/15734​02113​66616​11221​14854​ (2016).
17. Cheung, A. K. et al. Blood pressure in chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a kidney disease: improving global outcomes
(KDIGO) controversies conference. Kidney Int. 95, 1027–1036. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2018.12.025 (2019).
18. Obi, Y., Kalantar-Zadeh, K., Shintani, A., Kovesdy, C. P. & Hamano, T. Estimated glomerular filtration rate and the risk-benefit
profile of intensive blood pressure control amongst nondiabetic patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial. J. Intern.
Med. 283, 314–327. https​://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12701​ (2018).
19. Jung, H. H., Park, J. I. & Jeong, J. S. Blood pressure-related risk among users versus nonusers of antihypertensives: a population-
based cohort in Korea. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex: 1979) 71, 1047–1055. https:​ //doi.org/10.1161/hypert​ ensio ​ naha.​ 118.11068​ (2018).
20. Yamamoto, T. et al. Relationship between low blood pressure and renal/cardiovascular outcomes in Japanese patients with chronic
kidney disease under nephrologist care: the Gonryo study. Clin. Exp. Nephrol. 19, 878–886. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1015​7-015-
1084-4 (2015).
21. Son, J. S. et al. Association of blood pressure classification in Korean young adults according to the 2017 American College of
Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines with subsequent cardiovascular disease events. JAMA 320, 1783–1792. https​
://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.16501​(2018).
22. Choi, Y. J. et al. Reconsidering the cut-off diastolic blood pressure for predicting cardiovascular events: a nationwide population-
based study from Korea. Eur. Heart J. 40, 724–731. https​://doi.org/10.1093/eurhe​artj/ehy80​1 (2019).
23. Kim, M. K. et al. Blood pressure and development of cardiovascular disease in Koreans With type 2 diabetes mellitus. Hypertension
(Dallas, Tex: 1979) 73, 319–326 (2019).
24. Sweeting, M. J., Barrett, J. K., Thompson, S. G. & Wood, A. M. The use of repeated blood pressure measures for cardiovascular
risk prediction: a comparison of statistical models in the ARIC study. Stat. Med. 36, 4514–4528. https​://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7144
(2017).
25. Lee, Y. B. et al. Risk of end-stage renal disease from chronic kidney disease defined by decreased glomerular filtration rate in type
1 diabetes: a comparison with type 2 diabetes and the effect of metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 35, e3197. https​://
doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3197 (2019).
26. Kim, M. K. et al. Cholesterol variability and the risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke: a nationwide population-based
study. Eur. Heart J. 38, 3560–3566. https​://doi.org/10.1093/eurhe​artj/ehx58​5 (2017).

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1538 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81328-y 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

27. Yun, J. S. et al. Severe hypoglycemia and the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in type 2 diabetes: a nationwide population-
based cohort study. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 18, 103. https​://doi.org/10.1186/s1293​3-019-0909-y (2019).
28. Lee, Y. B. et al. Risk of early mortality and cardiovascular disease in type 1 diabetes: a comparison with type 2 diabetes, a nationwide
study. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 18, 157. https​://doi.org/10.1186/s1293​3-019-0953-7 (2019).
29. Lee, J. et al. Long-term risk of congestive heart failure in younger breast cancer survivors: a nationwide study by the SMARTSHIP
group. Cancer 126, 181–188. https​://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32485​ (2020).
30. Levey, A. S. et al. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann. Intern. Med. 150, 604–612. https​://doi.
org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-20090​5050-00006​ (2009).
31. Chapter 1: Definition and classification of CKD. Kidney Int Suppl (2011) 3, 19–62, https​://doi.org/10.1038/kisup​.2012.64 (2013).

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a research grant of Korea University [B1901301, A920197507, and K2020461 to
K.M.C]. The funding sources had no role in the design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing
of the report; and decision to submit the article for publication.
This work was performed using the database from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS). The
National Health Information Database constructed by the KNHIS (no. NHIS-2019-2-166) was used, and the
results do not necessarily represent the opinion of the National Health Insurance Corporation.

Author contributions
Y-B.L.: methodology and writing original draft. J.S.L.: Data curation, and formal analysis. S.H., J.A.K., and E.R.:
supervision and validation. H.J.Y.: methodology and supervision. S.H.B.: conceptualization, and supervision.
K.M.C.: methodology, supervision, and writing—review and editing. All authors reviewed and approved the
final version of the manuscript.

Competing interests 
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https​://doi.
org/10.1038/s4159​8-021-81328​-y.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to K.M.C.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2021

Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1538 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81328-y 8

Vol:.(1234567890)