Ageing and Stroke Medicine Section, Norwich Medical School, Bob Champion Research and Education Building, James Watson Rd, Norwich Research Park, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Ageing Clinical & Experimental Research Team (ACER), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Am Heart J. 2019 Jan;207:58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.09.005. Epub 2018 Oct 19.
Guidelines recommend ambulatory or home blood pressure monitoring to improve hypertension diagnosis and monitoring. Both these methods are ascribed the same threshold values, but whether they produce similar results has not been established in certain patient groups.
Adults with mild/moderate stroke or transient ischemic attack (N = 80) completed 2 sets of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure values from contemporaneous measurements were compared, and the limits of agreement were assessed. Exploratory analyses for predictive factors of any difference were conducted.
Daytime ambulatory blood pressure values were consistently lower than home values, the mean difference in systolic blood pressure for initial ambulatory versus first home monitoring was -6.6 ± 13.5 mm Hg (P≤.001), and final ambulatory versus second home monitoring was -7.1 ± 11.0mm Hg (P≤.001). Mean diastolic blood pressure differences were -2.1 ± 8.5mm Hg (P=.03) and -2.0 ± 7.2mm Hg (P=.02). Limits of agreement for systolic blood pressure were -33.0 to 19.9mm Hg and -28.7 to 14.5mm Hg for the 2 comparisons and for DBP were -18.8 to 14.5mm Hg and -16.1 to 12.2mm Hg, respectively. The individual mean change in systolic blood pressure difference was 11.0 ± 8.3mm Hg across the 2 comparisons. No predictive factors for these differences were identified.
Daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were significantly lower than home monitored values at both time points. Differences between the 2 methods were not reproducible for individuals. Using the same threshold value for both out-of-office measurement methods may not be appropriate in patients with cerebrovascular disease.
指南建议使用动态或家庭血压监测来改善高血压的诊断和监测。这两种方法都归因于相同的阈值,但在某些患者群体中,它们是否产生相似的结果尚未确定。
患有轻度/中度中风或短暂性脑缺血发作的成年人(N=80)完成了 2 组动态和家庭血压监测。比较了同时测量的收缩压和舒张压值,并评估了一致性界限。对任何差异的预测因素进行了探索性分析。
日间动态血压值始终低于家庭值,初始动态与首次家庭监测的收缩压平均差异为-6.6±13.5mmHg(P≤.001),最后动态与第二次家庭监测的收缩压平均差异为-7.1±11.0mmHg(P≤.001)。平均舒张压差异分别为-2.1±8.5mmHg(P=.03)和-2.0±7.2mmHg(P=.02)。收缩压的一致性界限分别为-33.0 至 19.9mmHg 和-28.7 至 14.5mmHg,舒张压的一致性界限分别为-18.8 至 14.5mmHg 和-16.1 至 12.2mmHg。2 次比较中收缩压差值的个体平均变化为 11.0±8.3mmHg。未确定这些差异的预测因素。
日间动态收缩压和舒张压值在两个时间点均明显低于家庭监测值。对于个体而言,这两种方法之间的差异不可重复。对于患有脑血管疾病的患者,使用相同的阈值值用于两种非诊室测量方法可能并不合适。