Mediating function of heart failure in the causal relationship between diastolic blood pressure and hypertensive renal disease with renal failure: a mediated Mendelian randomization study†

Pang, Lei; Ding, Zi-Jun; Chai, Hong-Qiang; Li, Fei; Wu, Ming; Shuang, Wei-Bing

doi:10.2478/fon-2024-0031

Abstract

Objective

To study the causality relationship between diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and hypertensive renal disease with renal failure (HRDRF) and the mediating role of heart failure (HF) in the causality relationship by network Mendelian randomization (MR).

Methods

Genome-wide analysis of DBP, HRDRF, and HF was downloaded from the public database (Genome-Wide Analysis Study [GWAS]) and was used to analyze the results and to conduct mediated MR analysis.

Results

Analysis showed that DBP was positively correlated with HRDRF (OR = 1.0002, 95% CI: 1.0001–1.0003, P = 1.8076e–05) and DBP was positively correlated with HF (OR = 1.0295, 95% CI: 1.0221–1.0370, P = 2.5292e–15). HF and HRDRF had a positive causal effect (OR = 1.0001, 95% CI: 1.0000–1.0001, P = 0.0152). Mediation analysis showed that the contribution ratio of HF to the combined effect of DBP and HRDRF was 24.69%.

Conclusions

DBP can increase the risk of renal disease with renal failure, and HF may play an important role in mediating this causal relationship.

References

Rossi GP, Bisogni V, Rossitto G, et al. Practice recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of the most common forms of secondary hypertension. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2020;27:547–560.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Edmonston DL, Sparks MA. Therapeutic options for chronic kidney disease-associated pulmonary hypertension. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2020;29:497–507.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bai K, Chen R, Lu F, et al. Blood pressure is associated with rapid kidney function decline in a very elderly hypertensive Chinese population. Clin Interv Aging. 2020;15:1317–1323.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Georgianos PI, Agarwal R. Resistant hypertension in chronic kidney disease (CKD): prevalence, treatment particularities, and research agenda. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2020;22:84.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hung MH, Huang CC, Chung CM, Chen JW. 24-h ambulatory blood pressure variability and hypertensive nephropathy in Han Chinese hypertensive patients. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2021;23:281–288.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mentz RJ, Xu H, O’Brien EC, et al. PROVIDE-HF primary results: patient-reported outcomes investigation following initiation of drug therapy with entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) in heart failure. Am Heart J. 2020;230:35–43.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Exner S, Schuldt C, Sachindra S, et al. AGTR1 is overexpressed in neuroendocrine neoplasms, regulates secretion and may potentially serve as a target for molecular imaging and therapy. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:3138.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ji LD, Li JY, Yao BB, Cai XB, Shen QJ, Xu J. Are genetic polymorphisms in the renin-angiotensinaldosterone system associated with essential hypertension? Evidence from genome-wide association studies. J Hum Hypertens. 2017;31: 695–698.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Katan MB. Apolipoprotein E isoforms, serum cholesterol, and cancer. 1986. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burgess S, Daniel RM, Butterworth AS, Thompson SG; EPIC-InterAct Consortium. Network Mendelian randomization: using genetic variants as instrumental variables to investigate mediation in causal pathways. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:484–495.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JA, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med. 2008;27:1133–1163.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burgess S, Davey Smith G, Davies NM, et al. Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations. Wellcome Open Res. 2019;4:186.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Staley JR, Burgess S. Semiparametric methods for estimation of a nonlinear exposure-outcome relationship using instrumental variables with application to Mendelian randomization. Genet Epidemiol. 2017;41:341–352.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Richmond RC, Anderson EL, Dashti HS, et al. Investigating causal relations between sleep traits and risk of breast cancer in women: Mendelian randomisation study. BMJ. 2019;365:l2327.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wang J, Kwok MK, Au Yeung SL, et al. Sleep duration and risk of diabetes: observational and Mendelian randomization studies. Prev Med. 2019;119:24–30.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Henry A, Katsoulis M, Masi S, et al. The relationship between sleep duration, cognition and dementia: a Mendelian randomization study. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48:849–860.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Anderson EL, Richmond RC, Jones SE, et al. Is disrupted sleep a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease? Evidence from a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50: 817–828.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brand JS, Gaillard R, West J, et al. Associations of maternal quitting, reducing, and continuing smoking during pregnancy with longitudinal fetal growth: findings from Mendelian randomization and parental negative control studies. PLoS Med. 2019;16:e1002972.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burgess S, Davies NM, Thompson SG. Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40:597–608.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Magnus MC, Miliku K, Bauer A, et al. Vitamin D and risk of pregnancy related hypertensive disorders: mendelian randomisation study. BMJ. 2018;361:k2167.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sun YQ, Burgess S, Staley JR, et al. Body mass index and all cause mortality in HUNT and UK Biobank studies: linear and non-linear Mendelian randomisation analyses. BMJ. 2019;364:l1042.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Palmer TM, Sterne JA, Harbord RM, et al. Instrumental variable estimation of causal risk ratios and causal odds ratios in Mendelian randomization analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173: 1392–1403.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lawson DJ, Davies NM, Haworth S, et al. Is population structure in the genetic biobank era irrelevant, a challenge, or an opportunity. Hum Genet. 2020;139:23–41.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhang ZY, Wang LJ. Methods for evaluating mediation effects: rationale and comparison. New Trends in Psychometrics. 2008;1:595–604.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lawlor DA. Commentary: two-sample Mendelian randomization: opportunities and challenges. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45:908–915.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burgess S, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in Mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods. Stat Med. 2016;35:1880–1906.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40:304–314.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:512–525.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hemani G, Bowden J, Davey Smith G. Evaluating the potential role of pleiotropy in Mendelian randomization studies. Hum Mol Genet. 2018;27: R195–R208.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yang Q, Sanderson E, Tilling K, Borges MC, Lawlor DA. Exploring and mitigating potential bias when genetic instrumental variables are associated with multiple non-exposure traits in Mendelian randomization. Eur J Epidemiol. 2022;37: 683–700.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lawlor D, Richmond R, Warrington N, et al. Using Mendelian randomization to determine causal effects of maternal pregnancy (intrauterine) exposures on offspring outcomes: sources of bias and methods for assessing them. Wellcome Open Res. 2017;2:11.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coats AJ, Shewan LG. The management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Card Fail Rev. 2015;1:11–15.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Borlaug BA. Taking aim at pulmonary hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:2574–2575.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Guazzi M, Gomberg-Maitland M, Arena R. Pulmonary hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:273–281.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ganau A, Devereux RB, Roman MJ, et al. Patterns of left ventricular hypertrophy and geometric remodeling inessential hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:1550–1558.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meera SJ, Ando T, Pu D, Manjappa S, Taub CC. Dynamic left ventricular changes in patients with gestational diabetes: a speckle tracking echocardiography study. J Clin Ultrasound. 2017;45: 20–27.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kozakova M, Morizzo C, Fraser AG, Palombo C. Impact of glycemic control on aortic stiffness, left ventricular mass and diastolic longitudinal function in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2017;16:78.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Murtaza G, Virk HUH, Khalid M, et al. Diabetic cardiomyopathy – a comprehensive updated review. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;62:315–326.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chen R, Wu X, Shen LJ, et al. Left ventricular myocardial function in hemodialysis and nondialysis uremia patients: a three-dimensional speckletracking echocardiography study. PLoS One. 2014;9:e100265.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kim HL, Kim MA, Oh S, et al. Sex difference in the association between metabolic syndrome and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2016;14:507–512.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zoppini G, Bergamini C, Bonapace S, et al. Association between subclinical left ventricular systolic dysfunction and glycemic control in asymptomatic type 2 diabetic patients with preserved left ventricular function. J Diabetes Complications. 2017;31:1035–1040.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article