Schwartz Joseph E, Burg Matthew M, Shimbo Daichi, Broderick Joan E, Stone Arthur A, Ishikawa Joji, Sloan Richard, Yurgel Tyla, Grossman Steven, Pickering Thomas G
From Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health (J.E.S., D.S., S.G., T.G.P.) and Department of Psychiatry (R.S.), Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY (J.E.S., T.Y., S.G.); Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT (M.M.B.); USC Dornsife Center for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (J.E.B., A.A.S.); and Department of Cardiology, Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital and Institute of Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan (J.I.).
Circulation. 2016 Dec 6;134(23):1794-1807. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023404.
Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) is consistently superior to clinic blood pressure (CBP) as a predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk. A common perception is that ABP is usually lower than CBP. The relationship of the CBP minus ABP difference to age has not been examined in the United States.
Between 2005 and 2012, 888 healthy, employed, middle-aged (mean±SD age, 45±10.4 years) individuals (59% female, 7.4% black, 12% Hispanic) with screening BP <160/105 mm Hg and not taking antihypertensive medication completed 3 separate clinic BP assessments and a 24-hour ABP recording for the Masked Hypertension Study. The distributions of CBP, mean awake ABP (aABP), and the CBP-aABP difference in the full sample and by demographic characteristics were compared. Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing was used to model the relationship of the BP measures to age and body mass index. The prevalence of discrepancies in ABP- versus CBP-defined hypertension status-white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension-were also examined.
Average systolic/diastolic aABP (123.0/77.4±10.3/7.4 mm Hg) was significantly higher than the average of 9 CBP readings over 3 visits (116.0/75.4±11.6/7.7 mm Hg). aABP exceeded CBP by >10 mm Hg much more frequently than CBP exceeded aABP. The difference (aABP>CBP) was most pronounced in young adults and those with normal body mass index. The systolic difference progressively diminished, but did not disappear, at older ages and higher body mass indexes. The diastolic difference vanished around age 65 and reversed (CBP>aABP) for body mass index >32.5 kg/m. Whereas 5.3% of participants were hypertensive by CBP, 19.2% were hypertensive by aABP; 15.7% of those with nonelevated CBP had masked hypertension.
Contrary to a widely held belief, based primarily on cohort studies of patients with elevated CBP, ABP is not usually lower than CBP, at least not among healthy, employed individuals. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of otherwise healthy individuals with nonelevated CBP have masked hypertension. Demonstrated CBP-aABP gradients, if confirmed in representative samples (eg, NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey]), could provide guidance for primary care physicians as to when, for a given CBP, 24-hour ABP would be useful to identify or rule out masked hypertension.
动态血压(ABP)作为心血管发病和死亡风险的预测指标,始终优于诊所血压(CBP)。一种普遍的看法是,ABP通常低于CBP。在美国,尚未对CBP减去ABP的差值与年龄之间的关系进行研究。
在2005年至2012年期间,888名健康、在职的中年人(平均±标准差年龄为45±10.4岁)(59%为女性,7.4%为黑人,12%为西班牙裔),筛查血压<160/105 mmHg且未服用抗高血压药物,完成了3次独立的诊所血压评估以及一项用于隐匿性高血压研究的24小时ABP记录。比较了全样本以及按人口统计学特征划分的CBP、平均清醒ABP(aABP)和CBP - aABP差值的分布情况。使用局部加权散点图平滑法来模拟血压测量值与年龄和体重指数之间的关系。还研究了ABP与CBP定义的高血压状态(白大衣高血压和隐匿性高血压)不一致的患病率。
平均收缩压/舒张压aABP(123.0/77.4±10.3/7.4 mmHg)显著高于3次就诊时9次CBP读数的平均值(116.0/75.4±11.6/7.7 mmHg)。aABP超过CBP超过10 mmHg的频率远高于CBP超过aABP的频率。这种差异(aABP>CBP)在年轻人和体重指数正常的人群中最为明显。收缩压差值在年龄较大和体重指数较高时逐渐减小,但并未消失。舒张压差值在65岁左右消失,对于体重指数>32.5 kg/m²的人群则相反(CBP>aABP)。虽然5.3%的参与者根据CBP诊断为高血压,但根据aABP诊断为高血压的比例为19.2%;CBP正常的参与者中有15.7%患有隐匿性高血压。
与主要基于CBP升高患者的队列研究得出的广泛观点相反,至少在健康、在职个体中,ABP通常并不低于CBP。此外,相当一部分CBP正常的健康个体患有隐匿性高血压。如果在代表性样本(如美国国家健康和营养检查调查[NHANES])中得到证实,所展示的CBP - aABP梯度可为初级保健医生提供指导,即在给定CBP水平时,24小时ABP何时有助于识别或排除隐匿性高血压。