Martínez María A, Sancho Teresa, García Pilar, Moreno Pilar, Rubio José M, Palau Francisco J, Antón José L, Cirujano Francisco J, Sanz José, Puig Juan G
Hospital and Primary Care Research Unit, Hospital La Paz, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Blood Press Monit. 2006 Aug;11(4):207-13. doi: 10.1097/01.mbp.0000209073.30708.e1.
(1) To assess whether home blood pressure measurement is a reliable alternative to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the evaluation of treated patients with inadequate blood pressure control at the clinic; and (2) to evaluate the relationship between home blood pressure and several target-organ damage markers.
A cross-sectional study was performed in 225 treated hypertensive patients with persistently high blood pressure values at the clinic (systolic blood pressure 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 mmHg). All study participants underwent clinic blood pressure measurement, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure monitoring. A subgroup of patients underwent the following procedures: carotid echography (n=74), microalbuminuria determination (n=88) and echocardiography (n=43). We defined out-of-clinic normotension as an average ambulatory or home blood pressure less than 135 mmHg (systolic) and 85 mmHg (diastolic).
The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of the home blood pressure method for predicting out-of-clinic normotension (with the ambulatory method used as reference), expressed as percentages, were 50, 87, 64 and 79%, respectively. Systolic home blood pressure correlated significantly with left ventricular mass (r=0.33, P<0.05) and microalbuminuria (r=0.24, P<0.05). Similar correlation coefficients were found for systolic ambulatory blood pressure (r=0.32, P<0.05 and r=0.24, P<0.05, respectively). Clinic blood pressure did not correlate with either left ventricular mass or microalbuminuria (r=0.19, P=0.09 and r=0.19, P=0.24, respectively). Diastolic home blood pressure, but not ambulatory blood pressure, correlated negatively with mean carotid intima-media thickness (r=-0.27, P<0.05).
Our results suggest that, in patients with poorly controlled hypertension at the clinic, home blood pressure represents a complementary test rather than an alternative to ambulatory blood pressure, and correlates with several target-organ damage markers.
(1)评估家庭血压测量对于评估临床血压控制不佳的已治疗患者是否是动态血压监测的可靠替代方法;(2)评估家庭血压与几种靶器官损害标志物之间的关系。
对225例临床血压持续升高(收缩压≥140 mmHg和/或舒张压≥90 mmHg)的已治疗高血压患者进行了一项横断面研究。所有研究参与者均接受了临床血压测量、24小时动态血压监测和家庭血压监测。一组亚组患者接受了以下检查:颈动脉超声检查(n = 74)、微量白蛋白尿测定(n = 88)和超声心动图检查(n = 43)。我们将门诊外血压正常定义为动态或家庭平均血压低于135 mmHg(收缩压)和85 mmHg(舒张压)。
以百分比表示,家庭血压测量方法预测门诊外血压正常(以动态血压测量方法为参考)的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为50%、87%、64%和79%。家庭收缩压与左心室质量(r = 0.33,P < 0.05)和微量白蛋白尿(r = 0.24,P < 0.05)显著相关。动态收缩压也有类似的相关系数(分别为r = 0.32,P < 0.05和r = 0.24,P < 0.05)。临床血压与左心室质量或微量白蛋白尿均无相关性(分别为r = 0.19,P = 0.09和r = 0.19,P = 0.24)。家庭舒张压而非动态血压与平均颈动脉内膜中层厚度呈负相关(r = -0.27,P < 0.05)。
我们的结果表明,对于临床高血压控制不佳的患者,家庭血压是一种补充检查,而非动态血压的替代方法,并且与几种靶器官损害标志物相关。