Resistant hypertension is common in the chronic kidney disease population and conveys increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and the development of kidney failure. Recently, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association published a revised scientific statement on the definition and management of resistant hypertension, which codified the long-debated differences between pseudoresistant hypertension and true resistant hypertension. We review this distinction and its importance to nephrologists, who frequently encounter patients for whom antihypertensive therapy fails due to difficulty adhering to complex multidrug regimens. Second, we discuss the evaluation of patients with resistant hypertension, including appropriate screening and diagnostic testing for causes of secondary hypertension. Third, we examine the management of established resistant hypertension, including medication optimization, recent clinical trials supporting lifestyle modifications, and the evidence behind the routine use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Special attention is given to the vital role of diuretics in the treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease. We propose an algorithm for the diagnosis and management of these cases. Finally, we briefly discuss the current state of antihypertensive device therapies, including kidney denervation and baroreceptor-directed therapies.Complete author and article information provided before references.

Purpose of reviewThe known timing of contrast media exposure in patients identified as high-risk for contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) enables the use of strategies to prevent this complication of intravascular contrast media exposure. Although multiple preventive strategies have been proposed, periprocedural fluid administration remains as the primary preventive strategy. This is a critical review of the current evidence evaluating a variety of fluid administration strategies in CA-AKI.Recent findingsFluid administration strategies to prevent CA-AKI include comparisons of intravenous (i.v.) to no fluid administration, different fluid solutions, duration of fluid administration, oral hydration, left ventricular end diastolic-pressure guided fluid administration and forced diuresis techniques.SummaryDespite an abundance of fluid administration trials, it is difficult to make definitive recommendations about preventive fluid administration strategies due to low scientific quality of published studies. The literature supports use of i.v. compared with no fluid administration, especially in high-risk patients undergoing intra-arterial contrast media exposure. Use of isotonic saline is recommended over 0.45% saline or isotonic sodium bicarbonate. Logistical considerations support shortened over longer i.v. fluid administration strategies, despite an absence of evidence of equivalent efficacy. Current literature does not support oral hydration for high-risk patients. The use of tailored fluid administration in heart failure patients and forced diuresis with matching fluid administration are promising new fluid administration strategies.

While the administration of intravenous fluids remains an important treatment, the negative consequences of subsequent fluid overload have raised questions about when and how clinicians should pursue avenues of fluid removal. Decisions regarding fluid removal during critical illness are complex even for patients with preserved kidney function. This article seeks to apply general concepts of fluid management to the care of patients who also require KRT. Because optimal fluid management for any specific patient is likely to change over the course of critical illness, conceptual models using phases of care have been developed. In this review, we will examine the implications of one such model on the use of ultrafiltration during KRT for volume removal in distributive shock. This will also provide a useful lens to re-examine published data of KRT during critical illness. We will highlight recent prospective trials of KRT as well as recent retrospective studies examining ultrafiltration rate and mortality, review the results, and discuss applications and shortcomings of these studies. We also emphasize that current data and techniques suggest that optimal guidelines will not consist of recommendations for or against absolute fluid removal rates but will instead require the development of dynamic protocols involving frequent cycles of reassessment and adjustment of net fluid removal goals. If optimal fluid management is dynamic, then frequent assessment of fluid responsiveness, fluid toxicity, and tolerance of fluid removal will be needed. Innovations in our ability to assess these parameters may improve our management of ultrafiltration in the future.