Suppr超能文献

中心血压和外周血压测量重复性:ARIC 研究。

Measurement Repeatability of Central and Peripheral Blood Pressures: The ARIC Study.

机构信息

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

Am J Hypertens. 2017 Oct 1;30(10):978-984. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpx084.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Central systolic and pulse pressures are markers of risk for small vessel disease in the brain and kidneys. The extent to which these markers are reproducible in the setting of population studies is less well established. We estimated short-term repeatability of central systolic and pulse pressures, and those of their peripheral measures for comparison.

METHODS

Participants aged 65 years and over (n = 79, 56% women) were drawn from the 2011-2013 examination of the ARIC cohort. Measurements were obtained with automated devices in the supine position, except for conventional sitting pressures, from paired measurements at each of 2 visits separated by 4 to 8 weeks. Three-level variance component models with between-participant, between-visit, and within-visit components estimated reliability metrics.

RESULTS

Mean central systolic and pulse pressures were higher than conventional brachial measures, yet their 4 to 8 week measurement repeatability was similar: reliability coefficients were 0.62 (95% confidence interval: 0.49, 0.74) and 0.63 (0.51, 0.76) for central and sitting brachial systolic pressures, and 0.66 (0.54. 0.77) and 0.73 (0.63, 0.82) for their corresponding pulse pressures. Between-participant variation contributed to two-thirds of the short-term repeatability for all measures. Within-visit variation remained uniformly low across visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the average of 2 standardized measurements obtained at a single visit can provide reliable estimates of central systolic and pulse pressures. The reliability coefficients of central and peripheral blood pressure measures were comparable. Estimates are presented of minimal detectable change and difference to aid in study design and evaluation of analytic results.

摘要

背景

中心收缩压和脉压是脑和肾脏小血管疾病风险的标志物。这些标志物在人群研究中的可重复性程度尚未得到充分证实。我们评估了中心收缩压和脉压及其外周测量值的短期可重复性,并进行了比较。

方法

参与者年龄在 65 岁及以上(n=79,56%为女性),来自 ARIC 队列 2011-2013 年的检查。测量采用自动设备在仰卧位进行,除传统的坐姿血压外,在两次就诊之间相隔 4 至 8 周的每次就诊时均进行两次测量。采用三水平方差分量模型,其中包括个体间、就诊间和就诊内分量,以估计可靠性指标。

结果

中心收缩压和脉压均高于传统的肱动脉测量值,但 4 至 8 周的测量重复性相似:可靠性系数分别为 0.62(95%置信区间:0.49,0.74)和 0.63(0.51,0.76)用于中心和坐姿肱动脉收缩压,以及 0.66(0.54,0.77)和 0.73(0.63,0.82)用于相应的脉压。所有测量值的短期重复性中,个体间变异贡献了三分之二。就诊内变异在各次就诊中保持一致低水平。

结论

我们的结果表明,单次就诊时获得的 2 次标准化测量的平均值可以提供可靠的中心收缩压和脉压估计值。中心和外周血压测量值的可靠性系数相当。提供了最小可检测变化和差异的估计值,以帮助研究设计和评估分析结果。

相似文献

1
Measurement Repeatability of Central and Peripheral Blood Pressures: The ARIC Study.
Am J Hypertens. 2017 Oct 1;30(10):978-984. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpx084.
3
Reliability of oscillometric central blood pressure and central systolic loading in individuals over 50 years: Effects of posture and fasting.
Atherosclerosis. 2018 Feb;269:79-85. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2017.12.030. Epub 2017 Dec 27.
4
Assessment of central haemomodynamics from a brachial cuff in a community setting.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2012 Jun 26;12:48. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-12-48.
6
Validation of a method for determination of the ankle-brachial index in the seated position.
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Nov;48(5):1204-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.06.052. Epub 2008 Sep 30.
7
Central pressure more strongly relates to vascular disease and outcome than does brachial pressure: the Strong Heart Study.
Hypertension. 2007 Jul;50(1):197-203. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.089078. Epub 2007 May 7.
10
Comparsion of central aortic pressure to brachial artery pressure in hypertensive patients on drug treatment: An observational study.
Indian Heart J. 2018 Dec;70 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S208-S212. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2018.10.418. Epub 2018 Nov 14.

本文引用的文献

4
Influence of vascular function and pulsatile hemodynamics on cardiac function.
Curr Hypertens Rep. 2015 Sep;17(9):580. doi: 10.1007/s11906-015-0580-y.
7
Estimation of central aortic blood pressure: a systematic meta-analysis of available techniques.
J Hypertens. 2014 Sep;32(9):1727-40. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000249.
10
Regression dilution bias: tools for correction methods and sample size calculation.
Ups J Med Sci. 2012 Aug;117(3):279-83. doi: 10.3109/03009734.2012.668143. Epub 2012 Mar 8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验