Stergiou George S, Argyraki Katerina K, Moyssakis Ioannis, Mastorantonakis Stylianos E, Achimastos Apostolos D, Karamanos Vasilios G, Roussias Leonidas G
Hypertension Center, Third University Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Am J Hypertens. 2007 Jun;20(6):616-21. doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2006.12.013.
Our objective was to assess the value of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in comparison to office BP measurements and ambulatory monitoring in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage.
Sixty-eight untreated patients with hypertension with at least two routine prestudy office visits were included (mean age, 48.6 +/- 9.1 [SD] years; 50 men). Office BP was measured in two study visits, home BP was measured for 6 workdays, and ambulatory BP was monitored for 24 h. All BP measurements were obtained using validated electronic devices. Target-organ damage was assessed by measuring the echocardiographic left-ventricular mass index (LVMI), urinary albumin excretion rate (AER) in two overnight urine collections, and carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (PWV) (Complior device; Colson, Garges-les-Gonesse, Paris, France).
The correlation coefficients of LVMI with office BP were 0.24/0.15 (systolic/diastolic), with home BP 0.35/0.21 (systolic, P < .01), and with 24-h ambulatory BP 0.23/0.19, awake 0.21/0.16, and asleep 0.28/0.26 (asleep, both P < .05). The correlation coefficients of AER with office BP were 0.24/0.31 (diastolic, P < .05), with home BP 0.28/0.26 (both P < .05), and with 24-h ambulatory BP 0.25/0.24, awake 0.24/0.25 (diastolic, P < .05), and asleep 0.26/0.18 (systolic, P < .05). There was a trend for negative correlations between PWV and diastolic BP measurements (not significant). In multiple-regression models assessing independent predictors of each of the three indices of target-organ damage, systolic home BP and age were the only independent predictors of increased LVMI that reached borderline statistical significance.
These data suggest that home BP is as reliable as ambulatory monitoring in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage, and is superior to carefully taken office measurements.
我们的目标是评估家庭血压监测相对于诊室血压测量和动态血压监测在预测高血压所致靶器官损害方面的价值。
纳入68例未经治疗的高血压患者,这些患者至少进行过两次研究前的常规诊室就诊(平均年龄48.6±9.1[标准差]岁;50例男性)。在两次研究就诊时测量诊室血压,在6个工作日测量家庭血压,并进行24小时动态血压监测。所有血压测量均使用经过验证的电子设备。通过测量超声心动图左心室质量指数(LVMI)、两次夜间尿液收集的尿白蛋白排泄率(AER)以及颈股脉搏波速度(PWV)(Complior设备;法国巴黎科尔松市加尔热莱戈内斯的科尔松公司)来评估靶器官损害。
LVMI与诊室血压的相关系数为0.24/0.15(收缩压/舒张压),与家庭血压为0.35/0.21(收缩压,P<.01),与24小时动态血压为0.23/0.19,清醒时为0.21/0.16,睡眠时为0.28/0.26(睡眠时,两者P<.05)。AER与诊室血压的相关系数为0.24/0.31(舒张压,P<.05),与家庭血压为0.28/0.26(两者P<.05),与24小时动态血压为0.25/0.24,清醒时为0.24/0.25(舒张压,P<.05),睡眠时为0.26/0.18(收缩压,P<.05)。PWV与舒张压测量值之间存在负相关趋势(无统计学意义)。在评估三个靶器官损害指标各自独立预测因素的多元回归模型中,收缩压家庭血压和年龄是LVMI升高的仅有的达到临界统计学意义的独立预测因素。
这些数据表明,家庭血压在预测高血压所致靶器官损害方面与动态血压监测一样可靠,且优于精心测量的诊室血压。