Zakopoulos Nikolaos, Spengos Konstantinos, Tsivgoulis Georgios, Zis Vassilios, Manios Efstathios, Vemmos Konstantinos
Department of Clinical Therapeutics, Alexandra Hospital, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Blood Press Monit. 2006 Oct;11(5):235-41. doi: 10.1097/01.mbp.0000209081.01999.a9.
We compared the sensitivity of office blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring recordings in evaluating the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment and identified factors related to inadequate blood pressure control among hypertensive stroke survivors.
Office blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring measurements were performed at 120+/-30 days after ictus in 187 first-ever consecutive hypertensive stroke survivors who were receiving blood pressure-lowering medications according to international guidelines. Handicap was assessed by the modified Rankin Scale. Blood pressure was regarded as controlled if office and daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were <140/90 and <135/85 mmHg, respectively. Patients were subclassified according to the degree of their nocturnal systolic blood pressure fall [(mean daytime values-mean night-time values)100/mean daytime values] as dippers (>or=10%), nondippers (>or=0% and <10%) and reverse dippers (<0%).
Effective blood pressure control was documented in significantly (P<0.001) fewer patients using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (32.1%) than those using office recordings (43.3%), whereas in 16% of the study population a masked lack of per-treatment blood pressure control (elevated ambulatory blood pressure in the presence of normal office blood pressure levels) was identified. The distribution of dipping patterns differed significantly (P=0.01) between controlled hypertensive individuals (normal office and ambulatory measurements) and patients with isolated ambulatory hypertension (dippers: 31.3 vs. 10.0%; nondippers:56.9 vs. 53.3%; reverse dippers: 11.8 vs. 36.7%). Logistic regression analysis revealed diabetes mellitus and functional independency (modified Rankin Scale score<2) as independent predictors of inadequate blood pressure control.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring detects a substantial number of treated hypertensive stroke survivors with a masked lack of per-treatment blood pressure control, who present a higher prevalence of abnormal circadian blood pressure patterns (reverse dipping). Diabetes mellitus and poststroke functional independency are the main factors contributing to inadequate blood pressure control.
我们比较了诊室血压和动态血压监测记录在评估降压治疗效果方面的敏感性,并确定了高血压性卒中幸存者血压控制不佳的相关因素。
对187例首次发生的连续性高血压性卒中幸存者在发病后120±30天进行诊室血压和动态血压监测,这些患者均按照国际指南接受降压药物治疗。采用改良Rankin量表评估残疾情况。如果诊室和日间动态收缩压及舒张压分别<140/90 mmHg和<135/85 mmHg,则认为血压得到控制。根据夜间收缩压下降程度[(日间平均值 - 夜间平均值)×100/日间平均值]将患者分为杓型(≥10%)、非杓型(≥0%且<10%)和反杓型(<0%)。
与使用诊室记录的患者(43.3%)相比,使用动态血压监测记录的患者中血压得到有效控制的比例显著更低(P<0.001,32.1%),而在16%的研究人群中发现存在治疗期间隐匿性血压控制不佳(诊室血压正常但动态血压升高)的情况。在血压得到控制的高血压患者(诊室和动态测量均正常)与单纯动态高血压患者之间,杓型模式的分布存在显著差异(P = 0.01)(杓型:31.3%对10.0%;非杓型:56.9%对53.3%;反杓型:11.8%对36.7%)。逻辑回归分析显示,糖尿病和功能独立性(改良Rankin量表评分<2)是血压控制不佳的独立预测因素。
动态血压监测可发现大量治疗期间隐匿性血压控制不佳的高血压性卒中幸存者,这些患者昼夜血压模式异常(反杓型)的患病率更高。糖尿病和卒中后功能独立性是导致血压控制不佳的主要因素。