Suppr超能文献

成人患者是否患有高血压?:理性临床检查系统评价。

Does This Adult Patient Have Hypertension?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

机构信息

Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Center for Novel and Exploratory Clinical Trials, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan.

出版信息

JAMA. 2021 Jul 27;326(4):339-347. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.4533.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Office blood pressure (BP) measurements are not the most accurate method to diagnose hypertension. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) are out-of-office alternatives, and ABPM is considered the reference standard for BP assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the accuracy of oscillometric office and home BP measurement methods for correctly classifying adults as having hypertension, defined using ABPM.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and DARE databases and the American Heart Association website (from inception to April 2021) were searched, along with reference lists from retrieved articles.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently abstracted raw data and assessed methodological quality. A third author resolved disputes as needed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Random effects summary sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for BP measurement methods for the diagnosis of hypertension. ABPM (24-hour mean BP ≥130/80 mm Hg or mean BP while awake ≥135/85 mm Hg) was considered the reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 12 cross-sectional studies (n = 6877) that compared conventional oscillometric office BP measurements to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM and 6 studies (n = 2049) that compared mean BP on HBPM to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM were included (range, 117-2209 participants per analysis); 2 of these studies (n = 3040) used consecutive samples. The overall prevalence of hypertension identified by 24-hour ABPM was 49% (95% CI, 39%-60%) in the pooled studies that evaluated office measures and 54% (95% CI, 39%-69%) in studies that evaluated HBPM. All included studies assessed sensitivity and specificity at the office BP threshold of 140/90 mm Hg and the home BP threshold of 135/85 mm Hg. Conventional office oscillometric measurement (1-5 measurements in a single visit with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 51% (95% CI, 36%-67%), specificity of 88% (95% CI, 80%-96%), positive LR of 4.2 (95% CI, 2.5-6.0), and negative LR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.69). Mean BP with HBPM (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-86%), specificity of 76% (95% CI, 65%-86%), positive LR of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.0), and negative LR of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.20-0.47). Two studies (1 with a consecutive sample) that compared unattended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had sensitivity ranging from 48% to 51% and specificity ranging from 80% to 91%. One study that compared attended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had a sensitivity of 87.6% (95% CI, 83%-92%) and specificity of 24.1% (95% CI, 16%-32%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Office measurements of BP may not be accurate enough to rule in or rule out hypertension; HBPM may be helpful to confirm a diagnosis. When there is uncertainty around threshold values or when office and HBPM are not in agreement, 24-hour ABPM should be considered to establish the diagnosis.

摘要

重要性

诊室血压(BP)测量不是诊断高血压的最准确方法。家庭 BP 监测(HBPM)和 24 小时动态血压监测(ABPM)是诊室以外的替代方法,ABPM 被认为是血压评估的参考标准。

目的

系统回顾使用袖带法诊室和家庭 BP 测量方法正确诊断高血压的准确性,高血压的定义是使用 ABPM 评估。

数据来源

PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 DARE 数据库以及美国心脏协会网站(从成立到 2021 年 4 月),并从检索到的文章中检索参考文献。

数据提取和综合

两名作者独立提取原始数据并评估方法学质量。如有必要,第三名作者解决争议。

主要结果和措施

为了诊断高血压,计算了 BP 测量方法的随机效应汇总敏感性、特异性和似然比(LR)。ABPM(24 小时平均 BP≥130/80mmHg 或清醒时平均 BP≥135/85mmHg)被认为是参考标准。

结果

共纳入 12 项横断面研究(n=6877),比较了传统的袖带法诊室 BP 测量与 24 小时 ABPM 期间的平均 BP,以及 6 项研究(n=2049),比较了 HBPM 期间的平均 BP 与 24 小时 ABPM 期间的平均 BP(每个分析范围为 117-2209 名参与者);其中 2 项研究(n=3040)使用了连续样本。汇总研究中,24 小时 ABPM 确定的高血压总体患病率为 49%(95%CI,39%-60%),评估 HBPM 的研究中为 54%(95%CI,39%-69%)。所有纳入的研究均在诊室 BP 阈值 140/90mmHg 和家庭 BP 阈值 135/85mmHg 处评估敏感性和特异性。传统的诊室袖带法测量(单次就诊 1-5 次测量,BP≥140/90mmHg)的敏感性为 51%(95%CI,36%-67%),特异性为 88%(95%CI,80%-96%),阳性 LR 为 4.2(95%CI,2.5-6.0),阴性 LR 为 0.56(95%CI,0.42-0.69)。HBPM 平均 BP(BP≥135/85mmHg)的敏感性为 75%(95%CI,65%-86%),特异性为 76%(95%CI,65%-86%),阳性 LR 为 3.1(95%CI,2.2-4.0),阴性 LR 为 0.33(95%CI,0.20-0.47)。两项研究(其中一项为连续样本)比较了未监测的自动诊室平均 BP(BP≥135/85mmHg)与 24 小时 ABPM,敏感性范围为 48%-51%,特异性范围为 80%-91%。一项研究比较了有监测的自动诊室平均 BP(BP≥140/90mmHg)与 24 小时 ABPM,敏感性为 87.6%(95%CI,83%-92%),特异性为 24.1%(95%CI,16%-32%)。

结论和相关性

诊室 BP 测量可能不够准确,无法排除或确诊高血压;HBPM 可能有助于确认诊断。当阈值值存在不确定性或诊室和 HBPM 不一致时,应考虑 24 小时 ABPM 以确定诊断。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验