Addison C, Varney S, Coats A
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Dovehouse Street, London SW3 6LY, UK.
J Hum Hypertens. 2001 Aug;15(8):535-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001210.
To investigate the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in identifying and managing a group of patients referred to a tertiary centre for the assessment of their blood pressure and to illustrate the importance of introducing standardised ABPM treatment guidelines.
We examined 2000 sequential ABP recordings, 1557 were first time referrals from General Practitioners, Consultants and other hospitals. All patients were referred with suspected hypertension, resistant hypertension, white coat hypertension and for investigations of secondary hypertension. Fully trained nurse specialists fitted the monitors in the hypertension clinic and recordings were performed for 24 h. The data was then analysed and stratified according to treatment guidelines and categorised according to different definitions.
The group of first time referrals (n = 1557) showed an even sex distribution of 789 men and 768 women, mean age 53 +/- 13.8 (12-88 years). Of this group 542 patients (35%) exhibited a white coat effect (WCE), 526 (34%) had a daytime ABP < or =139/89 mm Hg. Of these 81 (15%) had a high clinic blood pressure (ie, white coat hypertension (WCH)) according to our definition. Thirty-five of these patients were not on treatment but may have had it initiated on the basis of their clinic pressures. According to the British Hypertension Society (BHS) guidelines on clinic readings 772 (45%) of our patients would be classified as hypertensive or inadequately treated, 509 (33%) borderline and 326 (21%) as normal. Using daytime ABP levels according to O'Brien: 1031 (67%) would be defined as abnormal, 192 (12%) as borderline and 334 (21%) as normal.
These results illustrates how patient management may differ markedly when treating in accordance either with the BHS guidelines for clinic readings or the suggested levels for ABP. More patients had abnormal blood pressure levels according to ABPM, even though it is superior in detecting WCE and WCH. Clear guidelines for ABPM treatment levels need to be established.
探讨动态血压监测(ABPM)在识别和管理一组转诊至三级中心进行血压评估的患者中的应用,并阐明引入标准化ABPM治疗指南的重要性。
我们检查了2000份连续的ABP记录,其中1557份是全科医生、顾问医生和其他医院的首次转诊。所有患者均因疑似高血压、顽固性高血压、白大衣高血压以及继发性高血压的检查而转诊。经过充分培训的护士专家在高血压诊所为患者佩戴监测仪,并进行24小时记录。然后根据治疗指南对数据进行分析和分层,并根据不同定义进行分类。
首次转诊组(n = 1557)中,男性789例,女性768例,性别分布均匀,平均年龄53±13.8岁(12 - 88岁)。在该组中,542例患者(35%)表现出白大衣效应(WCE),526例(34%)白天ABP≤139/89 mmHg。根据我们的定义,其中81例(15%)诊所血压高(即白大衣高血压(WCH))。这些患者中有35例未接受治疗,但可能会根据其诊所血压开始治疗。根据英国高血压学会(BHS)关于诊所读数的指南,我们的患者中有772例(45%)将被归类为高血压或治疗不充分,509例(33%)为临界高血压,326例(21%)为正常血压。根据奥布赖恩(O'Brien)的白天ABP水平标准:1031例(67%)将被定义为异常,192例(12%)为临界高血压,334例(21%)为正常血压。
这些结果表明,根据BHS诊所读数指南或ABP建议水平进行治疗时,患者管理可能存在显著差异。尽管ABPM在检测WCE和WCH方面更具优势,但根据ABPM有更多患者血压水平异常。需要建立明确的ABPM治疗水平指南。