Palomba Claudia, Donadio Simone, Canciello Grazia, Losi Maria Angela, Izzo Raffaele, Manzi Maria Virginia, De Pisapia Federica, Mancusi Costantino, De Luca Nicola
Hypertension Research Center, Federico II University Hospital, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Department of Advanced Biomedical Science, Federico II University Hospital, Naples, Italy.
High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2019 Oct;26(5):383-389. doi: 10.1007/s40292-019-00337-1. Epub 2019 Aug 23.
The ESC-2018 guidelines suggest the use of Unattended automated office blood pressure (UAOBP) to avoid or at least reduce the white coat effect, even if do not support its use as preferred method.
To assess the pressure difference between UAOBP and Attended office blood pressure (AOBP) and to evaluate their correlations with target organ damage in hypertensive patients.
UAOBP and AOBP were taken in a cohort of 48 outpatients. The pressure difference between the 2 methods and their correlation with anthropometric and cardiac parameters were analyzed.
Unattended systolic and diastolic BP were lower than Attended systolic and diastolic BP (135 ± 17 mmHg vs 139 ± 21 mmHg and 79 ± 10 mmHg vs 82 ± 10 mmg). ΔDBP was significantly directly correlated with female sex (r = 0.347, p = 0.016) and it was lower in men compared to women (0.11 ± 8.9 mmHg vs 6.07 ± 7.42 mmHg, p = 0.016). Correlation coefficients for LVMi and RWT for attended and unattended BP were not statistically different (for LVMi r = 0.286 vs r = 0.381, p = 0.61, for RWT r = 0.413 vs r = 0.363, p = 0.78). The relationship between attended and unattended BP was described by the following equation: y = - 4.68 + 1.06*x; where Y is the attended systolic BP and X is the unattended systolic BP; in accordance with this equation, an unattended systolic BP of 140 mmHg corresponds to an attended systolic BP of 143.7 mmHg.
UAOBP provides significantly lower values than AOBP. The difference in BP values between the two methods is much lower than the one obtained in most clinical studies.
欧洲心脏病学会2018年指南建议使用无人值守自动诊室血压(UAOBP)来避免或至少减少白大衣效应,即便该指南并不支持将其作为首选方法使用。
评估UAOBP与有人值守诊室血压(AOBP)之间的压差,并评估它们与高血压患者靶器官损害的相关性。
对48名门诊患者进行了UAOBP和AOBP测量。分析了两种测量方法之间的压差及其与人体测量学和心脏参数的相关性。
无人值守时的收缩压和舒张压低于有人值守时的收缩压和舒张压(135±17mmHg对139±21mmHg以及79±10mmHg对82±10mmHg)。ΔDBP与女性呈显著正相关(r = 0.347,p = 0.016),男性的ΔDBP低于女性(0.11±8.9mmHg对6.07±7.42mmHg,p = 0.016)。有人值守和无人值守血压下左心室质量指数(LVMi)和相对室壁厚度(RWT)的相关系数无统计学差异(LVMi的相关系数分别为r = 0.286和r = 0.381,p = 0.61;RWT的相关系数分别为r = 0.413和r = 0.363,p = 0.78)。有人值守和无人值守血压之间的关系由以下方程描述:y = - 4.68 + 1.06 * x;其中Y是有人值守时的收缩压,X是无人值守时的收缩压;根据该方程,无人值守时收缩压为140mmHg对应有人值守时收缩压为143.7mmHg。
UAOBP提供的值显著低于AOBP。两种方法之间的血压值差异远低于大多数临床研究中的差异值。