Giorgini Paolo, Weder Alan B, Jackson Elizabeth A, Brook Robert D
Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, San Salvatore Hospital, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, ASH Comprehensive Hypertension Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
J Am Soc Hypertens. 2014 Sep;8(9):670-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2014.07.024. Epub 2014 Jul 9.
Hypertension guidelines recommend following published standardized protocols to obtain accurate blood pressure (BP) readings in clinical practice. However, the various measurement techniques among clinical trials that provide the basis for evidence-based management have not been evaluated or compared with guideline recommendations. We reviewed published information regarding BP measurement in clinical trials (n = 64) from 1990-2014 by searching PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Every trial failed to provide published information regarding at least one of the 10 methodological aspects we evaluated. Details regarding the health-care provider(s) performing measurement(s), temporal-relation to last medication dosage, number of readings, resting time before (and between recordings), and the device(s) used varied among the trials and often differed from clinical recommendations. Most studies did evaluate ≥2 BP readings in a seated position, presumably from the upper arm (although explicit acknowledgment of this latter detail was rare). When indicated, "trough" BP levels were most commonly obtained (15 of 16 trials), whereas the usage of automated devices increased over time. Numerous aspects of BP measurement varied considerably across trials and often from most recent guideline recommendations. The lack of uniform methodologies in outcome studies that form the foundation of evidence-based guidelines may have significant clinical implications.
高血压指南建议在临床实践中遵循已发布的标准化方案来获取准确的血压读数。然而,为循证管理提供依据的临床试验中的各种测量技术尚未得到评估,也未与指南建议进行比较。我们通过搜索PubMed和谷歌学术数据库,回顾了1990年至2014年期间发表的关于临床试验中血压测量的信息(n = 64)。每项试验都未能提供关于我们评估的10个方法学方面中至少一个方面的已发表信息。关于进行测量的医护人员、与上次用药剂量的时间关系、读数次数、(以及记录之间的)静息时间,以及所使用的设备等细节在各试验中各不相同,且常常与临床建议不符。大多数研究确实评估了≥2次坐位时的血压读数,推测是测量上臂血压(尽管很少明确提及这一细节)。如有指示,最常获取的是“谷值”血压水平(16项试验中的15项),而随着时间的推移,自动设备的使用有所增加。血压测量的许多方面在各试验中差异很大,且常常与最新指南建议不同。构成循证指南基础的结局研究中缺乏统一的方法可能具有重大的临床意义。