Gerin William, Ogedegbe Gbenga, Schwartz Joseph E, Chaplin William F, Goyal Tanya, Clemow Lynn, Davidson Karina W, Burg Matthew, Lipsky Shira, Kentor Rebecca, Jhalani Juhee, Shimbo Daichi, Pickering Thomas G
Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032, USA.
J Hypertens. 2006 Jan;24(1):67-74. doi: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000194117.96979.13.
A limitation of blood pressure measurements made in the physician's office is the transient elevation in pressure seen in many patients that does not appear to be linked to target organ damage or prognosis. This has been labeled the 'white-coat effect' (WCE), computed as the difference between blood pressure measurements taken by the physician and the ambulatory level or resting measures. It is unclear, however, which resting measure is most appropriate. The awake ambulatory blood pressure is the most widely used. However, while arguably the most useful measure for prediction of clinical outcomes, it is less appropriate for use as a resting measure, because it is influenced by many factors, including posture and physical activity level. Resting levels taken in the clinic may also be elevated, and will therefore underestimate the WCE.
We addressed this question by taking resting measures in a non-medical setting on the day before patients were seen at a Hypertension Clinic (day 1), and comparing these with resting measures taken on the following day, in the clinic before the patient saw the physician.
As predicted, the day 1 resting levels were lower than those taken in the clinic prior to seeing the physician (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001 for systolic and diastolic pressures, respectively) in both normotensive and hypertensive patients. Using the day 1 resting levels, the estimated WCE for hypertensive patients was 5.3/6.9 mmHg (systolic/diastolic blood pressures), compared with estimates, using the clinic resting levels, of 0.3/0.5 mmHg. The pattern of changes was different in normotensive patients and hypertensive patients, with the physician pressures being slightly lower than day 1 pressures in the former, and substantially higher in the latter. Heart rate changes were similar and modest in both groups.
The WCE may not just be limited to that narrow interval in which the patient actually sees the physician, but may generalize to the clinic setting, rendering a clinic 'resting' level invalid. While it is strongly positive in most hypertensive patients, it is frequently negative in normotensive patients. Our results suggest that improved methods of measuring blood pressure in the clinic setting are unlikely to resolve the confounding influence of the WCE, and that greater reliance will need to be placed on out-of-office monitoring.
在医生办公室测量血压存在一个局限性,即许多患者会出现血压短暂升高,而这似乎与靶器官损害或预后无关。这被称为“白大衣效应”(WCE),计算方法为医生测量的血压与动态血压水平或静息血压测量值之间的差值。然而,尚不清楚哪种静息测量方法最为合适。清醒状态下的动态血压是使用最广泛的。然而,尽管它可能是预测临床结局最有用的测量方法,但作为静息测量方法却不太合适,因为它受许多因素影响,包括姿势和身体活动水平。在诊所测量的静息血压水平也可能升高,因此会低估白大衣效应。
我们通过在患者前往高血压诊所就诊前一天(第1天)在非医疗环境中测量静息血压,并将其与第二天患者就诊前在诊所测量的静息血压进行比较,来解决这个问题。
正如预期的那样,无论是血压正常者还是高血压患者,第1天的静息血压水平均低于就诊前在诊所测量的水平(收缩压和舒张压分别为P < 0.05和P < 0.001)。使用第1天的静息血压水平,高血压患者的估计白大衣效应为5.3/6.9 mmHg(收缩压/舒张压),而使用诊所静息血压水平的估计值为0.3/0.5 mmHg。血压正常者和高血压患者的变化模式不同,前者医生测量的血压略低于第1天的血压,而后者则明显更高。两组的心率变化相似且幅度较小。
白大衣效应可能不仅限于患者实际看医生的那段狭窄时间间隔,还可能扩展到诊所环境,使诊所的“静息”血压水平无效。虽然在大多数高血压患者中白大衣效应为强阳性,但在血压正常者中通常为阴性。我们的结果表明,改进诊所环境中测量血压的方法不太可能解决白大衣效应的混杂影响,需要更多地依赖诊室外监测。