Lai Min, Tong Huiyu, Wan Yirong, Wang Wenying, Su Hai
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Department of Medicine, Dutou Hospital of Nanchang County, Jiangxi, China.
J Am Soc Hypertens. 2018 Dec;12(12):e103-e106. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2018.11.006. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
The present study intended to evaluate the variation of the hypertensive prevalence detected on a single-day blood pressure (BP) value against that on an average of 3-day BP values. This study included 1185 residents (age 21-94, 62.6 ± 14.0 years, 491 males) for BP measurements over three separate visits within a 7-day period. The newly diagnosed hypertension on the first day BP value was recorded as hypertension by epidemiological method, whereas that on the average of 3-day BP values as hypertension by clinical method. True positive rate (TPR) was the ratio of the newly diagnosed hypertensives by clinical method to those by epidemiological method. The overestimation ratio was calculated based on the following formula: (epidemiological prevalence-clinical prevalence)/epidemiological prevalence. Our results showed that of the 367 newly diagnosed hypertensives by epidemiological method, 308 were confirmed by clinical method, and with a TPR of 83.9%. The epidemiological prevalence of hypertension was higher than the clinical prevalence (41.1% vs. 36.1%) with an overestimation ratio of 12.2%. In addition, the participants aged <65 years had a lower TPR (77.9% vs. 87.8%, P = .012) against the participants aged ≥65 years. Furthermore, participants with systolic BP values of <160 mm Hg (78.2% vs. 100%, P < .001) or diastolic BP values of <100 mm Hg also had a lower TPR (70.1% vs. 100%, P = .006) compared with those having a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-99 mm Hg. It is concluded that in this population, the hypertension prevalence by epidemiological method is overestimated by 12.2% against clinical hypertension prevalence.
本研究旨在评估单日血压（BP）值检测出的高血压患病率与3日血压平均值检测出的高血压患病率之间的差异。本研究纳入了1185名居民（年龄21 - 94岁，平均年龄62.6±14.0岁，男性491名），在7天内分三次进行血压测量。第一天血压值新诊断出的高血压按照流行病学方法记录，而3日血压平均值新诊断出的高血压按照临床方法记录。真阳性率（TPR）是临床方法新诊断出的高血压患者数与流行病学方法新诊断出的高血压患者数之比。高估率根据以下公式计算：（流行病学患病率 - 临床患病率）/流行病学患病率。我们的结果显示，在367名经流行病学方法新诊断出的高血压患者中，308名经临床方法得到确认，真阳性率为83.9%。高血压的流行病学患病率高于临床患病率（41.1%对36.1%），高估率为12.2%。此外，年龄<65岁的参与者与年龄≥65岁的参与者相比，真阳性率较低（77.9%对87.8%，P = 0.012）。此外，收缩压<160 mmHg的参与者（78.2%对100%，P < 0.001）或舒张压<100 mmHg的参与者与收缩压为140 - 159 mmHg或舒张压为90 - 99 mmHg的参与者相比，真阳性率也较低（70.1%对100%，P = 0.006）。研究得出结论，在该人群中，流行病学方法得出的高血压患病率比临床高血压患病率高估了12.2%。
