Aparicio Lucas Sebastian, Barochiner Jessica, Peuchot Veronica A, Giunta Diego H, Martínez Rocío, Morales Margarita S, Cuffaro Paula E, Waisman Gabriel D
Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hipertens Riesgo Vasc. 2019 Jan-Mar;36(1):5-13. doi: 10.1016/j.hipert.2018.09.001. Epub 2018 Oct 19.
The blood pressure measurement method that more accurately predicts a left ventricular mass is controversial, and the evidence suggesting superiority of central over brachial measurements is contradictory. The aim of this study was to compare the relationship between the different clinic and out-of-clinic blood pressure measurements methods with left ventricular mass in patients who attended a specialised hypertension centre for a central blood pressure measurement. An analysis was performed on the correlations between left ventricular mass and central and brachial blood pressure measurements made in the clinic, and home, as well as 24-h systolic blood pressure measurements. A linear regression analysis was then performed to assess the independent relationship of each blood pressure measurement with left ventricular mass. The results on 824 treated and 123 untreated patients showed no significant differences between correlations, although home readings tended to have the best correlations. In regression adjusted models, for each 10 mmHg increase in systolic home blood pressure the left ventricular mass increased 10 g/m (95% CI; 3.7-27, p=.01, R 0.38), and for 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure it increased 2.3 g/m (95% CI 0.76-3.9, p<.01, R 0.15) in treated and untreated patients, respectively. The association of systolic blood pressure with left ventricular mass was better explained by home and 24-h ambulatory monitoring than to clinic-based measurements in treated and untreated patients, respectively. In the clinic, however, the central measurement was not superior to brachial blood pressure.
能更准确预测左心室质量的血压测量方法存在争议,且表明中心血压测量优于肱动脉血压测量的证据相互矛盾。本研究的目的是比较不同的门诊和门诊外血压测量方法与在专门的高血压中心进行中心血压测量的患者左心室质量之间的关系。对左心室质量与在门诊、家中进行的中心和肱动脉血压测量以及24小时收缩压测量之间的相关性进行了分析。然后进行线性回归分析,以评估每种血压测量与左心室质量的独立关系。对824例接受治疗的患者和123例未接受治疗的患者的结果显示,相关性之间无显著差异,尽管家庭测量值的相关性往往最佳。在回归调整模型中,收缩期家庭血压每升高10 mmHg,接受治疗和未接受治疗的患者左心室质量分别增加10 g/m(95%CI;3.7 - 27,p = 0.01,R = 0.38),24小时动态收缩压每升高10 mmHg,左心室质量分别增加2.3 g/m(95%CI 0.76 - 3.9,p < 0.01,R = 0.15)。在接受治疗和未接受治疗的患者中,家庭和24小时动态监测对收缩压与左心室质量之间关联的解释分别优于基于门诊的测量。然而,在门诊中,中心血压测量并不优于肱动脉血压。