Suppr超能文献

在真实环境中进行有医护人员参与和无医护人员参与的血压测量。

Attended Versus Unattended Blood Pressure Measurement in a Real Life Setting.

机构信息

From the Universitätsklinikum Marien Hospital Herne, Medizinische Klinik I, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany (F.B., F.S.S., B.R., N.B., T.H.W.); General practitioner, Saarbruecken-Bischmisheim, Germany (K.A.R.B.); and General practitioner, Puettlingen, Germany (E.R.).

出版信息

Hypertension. 2018 Feb;71(2):243-249. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10026. Epub 2017 Dec 18.

Abstract

The debate on the generalizability of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) findings raised considerable interest in the technique of unattended office blood pressure (BP) measurement. It remains elusive, however, whether unattended BP measurement yields lower values than conventional measurements in a real world setting with subjects consulting their personal general practitioner in a familiar office. We performed a cross-sectional study in 158 patients in 4 general practitioners' offices and compared conventional auscultatory office BP to unattended automated office BP in 107 subjects (group 1) and unattended to attended automated office BP in another 51 subjects (group 2). Unattended BP was calculated as the mean of 3 automated measurements performed in a separate room after 5 minutes of rest. Additionally, patients documented home BP for 7 days after the consultation. Mean auscultatory office, unattended office and home BP were 144.6/81.0, 144.1/79.9, and 135.5/78.3 mm Hg in group 1; unattended and attended automated office BP were 134.2/80.6 and 135.7/80.6 mm Hg in group 2. Systolic attended and unattended office BP values were significantly higher than home BP (<0.001, <0.01, respectively). Attended and unattended office BP, however, did neither show a significant difference in group 1 nor in group 2 (>0.05 each). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.5 mm Hg systolic and 1.1 mm Hg diastolic in group 1 and -1.5 mm Hg systolic and 0 mm Hg diastolic in group 2. In conclusion, the present findings show that unattended and attended office BP measurements achieve comparable results, if measurements take place at a familiar general practitioner's office.

摘要

SPRINT(收缩压干预试验)研究结果的可推广性引发了人们对非监测诊室血压(BP)测量技术的极大兴趣。然而,在一个真实的环境中,当受试者在熟悉的医生办公室就诊时,非监测 BP 测量是否比传统测量得出的血压值更低,这一点仍不清楚。我们在 4 家普通诊所的 158 名患者中进行了一项横断面研究,比较了 107 名患者(第 1 组)中常规听诊诊室 BP 与非监测自动诊室 BP,以及另外 51 名患者(第 2 组)中非监测与监测自动诊室 BP。非监测 BP 是在 5 分钟休息后,在单独房间内进行的 3 次自动测量的平均值。此外,患者在就诊后 7 天记录家庭 BP。第 1 组的平均听诊诊室 BP、非监测诊室 BP 和家庭 BP 分别为 144.6/81.0、144.1/79.9 和 135.5/78.3mmHg;第 2 组的非监测和监测自动诊室 BP 分别为 134.2/80.6 和 135.7/80.6mmHg。收缩压监测和非监测诊室 BP 值明显高于家庭 BP 值(<0.001,<0.01)。然而,在第 1 组和第 2 组中,监测和非监测诊室 BP 之间均无显著差异(分别为>0.05)。Bland-Altman 分析显示,第 1 组收缩压的偏差为 0.5mmHg,舒张压的偏差为 1.1mmHg;第 2 组收缩压的偏差为-1.5mmHg,舒张压的偏差为 0mmHg。总之,本研究结果表明,如果在熟悉的全科医生诊所进行测量,非监测和监测诊室 BP 测量可获得相当的结果。

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