Suppr超能文献

诊室血压变异性、家庭自测血压变异性与动态血压监测血压变异性的相关性。

Correlation of Blood Pressure Variability as Measured By Clinic, Self-measurement at Home, and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.

机构信息

Cardiology Department, Hospital General Universitario Santa Lucía, Cartagena, Spain.

Chair of Cardiovascular Risk, Catholic University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.

出版信息

Am J Hypertens. 2018 Feb 9;31(3):305-312. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpx183.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure variability (BPV) has been postulated as a potential predictor of cardiovascular outcomes. No agreement exists as to which measurement method is best for BPV estimation. We attempt to assess the correlation between BPV obtained at the doctor's office, self-measurement at home (SMBP) and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

METHODS

Eight weekly clinic BP measurements, 2 SMBP series, and 1 24-hour ABPM recording were carried out in a sample of treated hypertensive patients. BPV was calculated using the SD, the "coefficient of variation" and the "average real variability." Determinants of short-, mid-, and long-term BPV (within each measurement method) were also calculated. The different BPV determinants were correlated "intramethod" and "intermethod" by linear regression test.

RESULTS

For the 104 patients (66.5 ± 7.7 years, 58.7% males), the ABPM BPV (SD, systolic/diastolic: 14.5 ± 3.1/9.8 ± 2.5 mm Hg) was higher than the SMBP (12.2 ± 9.8/7.4 ± 5.8 mm Hg; P < 0.001) and clinic BPV (10 ± 8.9/5.9 ± 4.9 mm Hg; P = 0.001). The main BPV correlation between methods was weak, with a maximum R2 = 0.17 (P < 0.001) between clinic and SMBP systolic BPV. The "intramethod" correlation of BPV yielded a maximum R2 = 0.21 (P < 0.001) between morning diastolic SMBP intershift/intermeans variability. The "intermethod" correlation of short-, mid-, and long-term BPV determinants was weak (maximum R2 = 0.22, P < 0.001, between clinic intraday variability/SMBP morning intershift variability).

CONCLUSIONS

The "intramethod" and "intermethod" correlation between BPV determinants was weak or nonexistent, even when comparing determinants reflecting the same type of temporal BPV. Our data suggest that BPV reflects a heterogeneous phenomenon that strongly depends on the estimation method and the time period evaluated.

摘要

背景

血压变异性(BPV)已被认为是心血管结局的潜在预测因子。目前尚不确定哪种测量方法最适合估计 BPV。我们试图评估医生办公室测量的 BPV、家庭自我测量(SMBP)和动态血压监测(ABPM)之间的相关性。

方法

对一组接受治疗的高血压患者进行了 8 次每周的诊所血压测量、2 次 SMBP 系列和 1 次 24 小时 ABPM 记录。使用标准差(SD)、“变异系数”和“平均真实变异性”计算 BPV。还计算了每种测量方法中短期、中期和长期 BPV(每个测量方法内)的决定因素。通过线性回归检验,对不同 BPV 决定因素进行了“内方法”和“外方法”的相关性分析。

结果

对于 104 名患者(66.5±7.7 岁,58.7%为男性),ABPM BPV(SD,收缩压/舒张压:14.5±3.1/9.8±2.5mmHg)高于 SMBP(12.2±9.8/7.4±5.8mmHg;P<0.001)和诊所 BPV(10±8.9/5.9±4.9mmHg;P=0.001)。方法之间的主要 BPV 相关性较弱,最大 R2=0.17(P<0.001),诊所和 SMBP 收缩压 BPV 之间。BPV 的“内方法”相关性产生了最大的 R2=0.21(P<0.001),在 SMBP 早晨移间/均值变异性之间。短、中、长期 BPV 决定因素的“外方法”相关性较弱(最大 R2=0.22,P<0.001,诊所日内变异性/SMBP 早晨移间变异性之间)。

结论

BPV 决定因素的“内方法”和“外方法”相关性较弱或不存在,即使比较反映相同类型时间 BPV 的决定因素也是如此。我们的数据表明,BPV 反映了一种异质性现象,强烈依赖于估计方法和评估的时间段。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验