Shimbo Daichi, Kuruvilla Sujith, Haas Donald, Pickering Thomas G, Schwartz Joseph E, Gerin William
Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.
J Hypertens. 2009 Sep;27(9):1775-83. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32832db8b9.
An algorithm for making a differential diagnosis between sustained and white coat hypertension (WCH) has been proposed - patients with office hypertension undergo home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and those with normal HBP levels undergo ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). We tested whether incorporating an upper office blood pressure (OBP) cut-off in the algorithm, higher than the traditional 140/90 mmHg, reduces the need for HBPM and ABPM.
Two hundred twenty-nine normotensive and untreated mildly hypertensive participants (mean age 52.5 +/- 14.6 years, 54% female participants) underwent OBP measurements, HBPM, and 24-h ABPM. Using the algorithm, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for sustained hypertension and WCH were assessed. We then modified the algorithm utilizing a systolic and diastolic OBP cut-off at a specificity of 95% for ambulatory hypertension - those with office hypertension but OBP levels below the upper cut-off underwent HBPM and subsequent ABPM, if appropriate.
Using the original algorithm, sensitivity and PPV for sustained hypertension were 100% and 93.8%, respectively. Despite a specificity of 44.4%, NPV was 100%. These values correspond to specificity, NPV, sensitivity, and PPV for WCH, respectively. Using the modified algorithm, the diagnostic accuracy for sustained hypertension and WCH did not change. However, far fewer participants needed HBPM (29 vs. 84) and ABPM (8 vs. 15).
In this sample, the original and modified algorithms are excellent at diagnosing sustained hypertension and WCH. However, the latter requires far fewer participants to undergo HBPM and ABPM. These findings have important implications for the cost-effective diagnosis of sustained hypertension and WCH.
已提出一种用于鉴别持续性高血压和白大衣高血压(WCH)的诊断算法——诊室高血压患者进行家庭血压监测(HBPM),家庭血压水平正常的患者进行动态血压监测(ABPM)。我们测试了在该算法中纳入高于传统的140/90 mmHg的诊室血压(OBP)上限,是否能减少对HBPM和ABPM的需求。
229名血压正常且未经治疗的轻度高血压参与者(平均年龄52.5±14.6岁,54%为女性参与者)接受了OBP测量、HBPM和24小时ABPM。使用该算法,评估持续性高血压和WCH的敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值(PPV、NPV)。然后,我们修改了该算法,将收缩压和舒张压OBP上限设定为动态高血压特异性为95%时——诊室高血压但OBP水平低于上限的患者进行HBPM,若合适则随后进行ABPM。
使用原始算法,持续性高血压的敏感性和PPV分别为100%和93.8%。尽管特异性为44.4%,但NPV为100%。这些值分别对应WCH的特异性、NPV、敏感性和PPV。使用修改后的算法,持续性高血压和WCH的诊断准确性没有变化。然而,需要进行HBPM的参与者(29名对84名)和ABPM的参与者(8名对15名)要少得多。
在该样本中,原始算法和修改后的算法在诊断持续性高血压和WCH方面都很出色。然而,后者需要进行HBPM和ABPM的参与者要少得多。这些发现对持续性高血压和WCH的经济高效诊断具有重要意义。