Gaborieau Valérie, Delarche Nicolas, Gosse Philippe
Cardiology unit, Pau General Hospital, Pau, France.
J Hypertens. 2008 Oct;26(10):1919-27. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32830c4368.
Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring and home blood pressure measurements predicted the presence of target organ damage and the risk of cardiovascular events better than did office blood pressure.
To compare these two methods in their correlation with organ damage, we consecutively included 325 treated (70%) or untreated hypertensives (125 women, mean age = 64.5 +/- 11.3) with office (three measurements at two consultations), home (three measurements morning and evening over 3 days) and 24-h ambulatory monitoring. Target organs were evaluated by ECG, echocardiography, carotid echography and detection of microalbuminuria. Data from 302 patients were analyzed.
Mean BP levels were 142/82 mmHg for office, 135.5/77 mmHg for home and 128/76 mmHg for 24-h monitoring (day = 130/78 mmHg; night = 118.5/67 mmHg). With a 135 mmHg cut-off, home and daytime blood pressure diverged in 20% of patients. Ambulatory and Home blood pressure were correlated with organ damage more closely than was office BP with a trend to better correlations with home BP. Using regression analysis, a 140 mmHg home systolic blood pressure corresponded to a 135 mmHg daytime systolic blood pressure; a 133 mmHg daytime ambulatory blood pressure and a 140 mmHg home blood pressure corresponded to the same organ damage cut-offs (Left ventricular mass index = 50 g/m, Cornell.QRS = 2440 mm/ms, carotid intima media thickness = 0.9 mm). Home-ambulatory differences were significantly associated with age and antihypertensive treatment.
We showed that home blood pressure was at least as well correlated with target organ damage, as was the ambulatory blood pressure. Home-ambulatory correlation and their correlation with organ damage argue in favor of different cut-offs, that are approximately 5 mmHg higher for systolic home blood pressure.
动态血压监测和家庭血压测量比诊室血压能更好地预测靶器官损害的存在及心血管事件风险。
为比较这两种方法与器官损害的相关性,我们连续纳入了325例接受治疗(70%)或未治疗的高血压患者(125名女性,平均年龄 = 64.5±11.3岁),进行诊室血压测量(两次会诊各测量三次)、家庭血压测量(3天内早晚各测量三次)以及24小时动态血压监测。通过心电图、超声心动图、颈动脉超声检查及微量白蛋白尿检测来评估靶器官。对302例患者的数据进行了分析。
诊室血压平均水平为142/82 mmHg,家庭血压为135.5/77 mmHg,24小时动态血压为12(128/76 mmHg(白天 = 130/78 mmHg;夜间 = 118.5/67 mmHg)。以135 mmHg为临界值,20%的患者家庭血压和白天血压存在差异。动态血压和家庭血压与器官损害的相关性比诊室血压更密切,且与家庭血压的相关性有更好的趋势。采用回归分析,家庭收缩压140 mmHg相当于白天动态收缩压135 mmHg;白天动态血压133 mmHg和家庭血压140 mmHg对应相同的器官损害临界值(左心室质量指数 = 50 g/m,康奈尔QRS = 2440 mm/ms,颈动脉内膜中层厚度 = 0.9 mm)。家庭血压与动态血压的差异与年龄及降压治疗显著相关。
我们发现家庭血压与靶器官损害的相关性至少与动态血压一样好。家庭血压与动态血压的相关性及其与器官损害的相关性支持采用不同的临界值,家庭收缩压临界值大约高5 mmHg。