Appiah Karen O B, Patel Minal, Panerai Ronney B, Robinson Thompson G, Haunton Victoria J
Department of Cardiovascular Sciences.
University Hospitals of Leicester, NHS Trust, Leicester Royal Infirmary Square, Leicester, UK.
Blood Press Monit. 2019 Apr;24(2):67-73. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000366.
Blood pressure variability (BPV) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) may be of prognostic significance. However, methodological heterogeneity of studies may contribute to inconsistent findings, and study findings are therefore not readily comparable. We investigated study methodologies which have assessed the long-term outcomes (≥7 days) of BPV post-AIS.
The literature search was conducted in OVID Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science following a predefined search strategy. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality, and source data were extracted.
Of 2044 studies identified, 19 observational studies and one case-control study were included; seven studies were additionally included. Twenty-two studies obtained good risk of bias ratings. Key findings were methodological heterogeneity and significant variability in the reporting of key criteria. Twenty-four studies reported intervals between blood pressure assessments; although 19 studies reported the monitoring device used, only eight studies reported the number of blood pressure measurements taken per visit. The majority measured supine blood pressure (n=13), and eight studies reported whether this was in the hemiparetic or unaffected arm. Sixteen studies defined BPV using SD and seven studies used only a single blood pressure parameter to quantify BPV. Increased BPV was associated with poorer neurological and functional outcomes, and death (n=23); other unfavorable outcomes included irregularly shaped lacunar infarcts, and impaired cognition (n=3).
Methodological heterogeneity is frequently observed in studies, primarily because of incomplete study reporting. However, increased BPV is associated with adverse long-term outcomes. There is a need for prospective studies investigating BPV post-AIS to report full methodologies according to standardized criteria.
急性缺血性卒中(AIS)患者的血压变异性(BPV)可能具有预后意义。然而,研究方法的异质性可能导致研究结果不一致,因此研究结果难以直接比较。我们调查了评估AIS后BPV长期结局(≥7天)的研究方法。
按照预先确定的检索策略,在OVID Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和科学网进行文献检索。两名评审员独立评估研究的纳入资格和质量,并提取源数据。
在检索到的2044项研究中,纳入了19项观察性研究和1项病例对照研究;另外纳入了7项研究。22项研究的偏倚风险评级良好。主要发现是方法学异质性以及关键标准报告中的显著变异性。24项研究报告了血压评估的时间间隔;尽管19项研究报告了所使用的监测设备,但只有8项研究报告了每次就诊时测量血压的次数。大多数研究测量的是仰卧位血压(n = 13),8项研究报告了这是在偏瘫侧还是未受影响侧的手臂测量。16项研究使用标准差定义BPV,7项研究仅使用单一血压参数来量化BPV。BPV升高与较差的神经和功能结局以及死亡相关(n = 23);其他不良结局包括不规则形状的腔隙性梗死和认知障碍(n = 3)。
研究中经常观察到方法学异质性,主要原因是研究报告不完整。然而,BPV升高与不良长期结局相关。需要进行前瞻性研究,以调查AIS后BPV,并根据标准化标准报告完整的方法。