Shen Ying, Ding Feng Hua, Wu Feng, Lu Lin, Zhang Rui Yan, Zhang Qi, Wu Zong Gui, Shen Wei Feng
aDepartment of Cardiology, Chang Zheng Hospital bDepartment of Cardiology, Rui Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine cInstitute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China *Feng Hua Ding is the co-first author.
J Hypertens. 2015 Mar;33(3):621-6; discussion 626. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000455.
We investigated whether and to what extent blood pressure (BP) affects coronary collateralization in type 2 diabetic and nondiabetic patients with stable angina and chronic total occlusion.
Brachial BP was measured using an inflatable cuff manometer in 431 diabetic and 287 nondiabetic patients with stable angina and angiographic total occlusion of at least one major coronary artery. They were classified according to the SBP (<100, 100-119, 120-139, 140-159, 160-179, and ≥180 mmHg), DBP (<60, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90-99, and ≥100 mmHg), and pulse (<40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥80 mmHg) BP ranges. The degree of coronary collaterals supplying the distal aspect of a total occlusion from the contralateral vessel was graded as poor (Rentrop score of 0 or 1) or good collateralization (Rentrop score of 2 or 3).
In diabetic patients, the incidence of poor collateralization was related to the DBP in a U-shaped pattern, with the lowest risk at 80-89 mmHg. In nondiabetic patients, an optimal DBP range was 90-99 mmHg for good collaterals, but no U-shaped relation between DBP and coronary collateralization was observed. After adjusting for the baseline characteristics in the logistic regression models, the increased risk of poor collateralization persisted for low or high DBP ranges in diabetic [odds ratio (OR) 2.02-7.29, P ≤ 0.04] and nondiabetic patients (OR 3.62-5.98, P ≤ 0.02). No such relations were observed between collateral grades and SBP and pulse BP.
This study demonstrates that 80-89 and 90-99 mmHg are the optimal ranges for DBP in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with stable angina and chronic total occlusion, within which the risk of poor collateralization is low.
我们研究了血压(BP)是否以及在何种程度上影响2型糖尿病和非糖尿病稳定型心绞痛及慢性完全闭塞患者的冠状动脉侧支循环。
使用充气袖带式血压计测量了431例糖尿病和287例非糖尿病稳定型心绞痛且至少有一支主要冠状动脉造影完全闭塞患者的肱动脉血压。根据收缩压(<100、100 - 119、120 - 139、140 - 159、160 - 179和≥180mmHg)、舒张压(<60、60 - 69、70 - 79、80 - 89、90 - 99和≥100mmHg)以及脉压(<40、40 - 49、50 - 59、60 - 69、70 - 79和≥80mmHg)范围对患者进行分类。来自对侧血管供应完全闭塞远端的冠状动脉侧支程度分为差(Rentrop评分为0或1)或良好侧支循环(Rentrop评分为2或3)。
在糖尿病患者中,侧支循环差的发生率与舒张压呈U形关系,在80 - 89mmHg时风险最低。在非糖尿病患者中,良好侧支循环的最佳舒张压范围为90 - 99mmHg,但未观察到舒张压与冠状动脉侧支循环之间的U形关系。在逻辑回归模型中对基线特征进行调整后,糖尿病患者[比值比(OR)2.02 - 7.29,P≤0.04]和非糖尿病患者(OR 3.62 - 5.98,P≤0.02)中,舒张压处于低或高范围时,侧支循环差的风险增加仍然存在。在侧支等级与收缩压和脉压之间未观察到此类关系。
本研究表明,80 - 89mmHg和90 - 99mmHg分别是糖尿病和非糖尿病稳定型心绞痛及慢性完全闭塞患者舒张压的最佳范围,在此范围内侧支循环差的风险较低。