Mansoor G A, McCabe E J, White W B
Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington 06032-3940.
J Hypertens. 1994 Jun;12(6):703-8.
To compare the reproducibility of ambulatory and office blood pressure readings in established hypertensive subjects when studies are repeated at extended time intervals.
Twenty-five hypertensive patients (office diastolic blood pressure > or = 90 mmHg) who were off antihypertensive therapy for at least 4 weeks and had repeat office and ambulatory blood pressures at least 3 months apart under similar study conditions.
On the same day, patients underwent office blood pressure readings measured by mercury column sphygmomanometry and then by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was done for 24 h, and awake and sleep periods were divided according to a diary kept by each patient. A second study was performed in an identical manner at a mean +/- SD interval of 23 +/- 24 months (range 3-80, median 15). The agreement between studies was assessed by correlation coefficients, coefficients of variation and standard deviation of the differences (SDD).
There were no significant differences in office, 24-h, awake and sleep mean blood pressures between the two studies. Mean 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 16 and 14 mmHg lower, respectively, than office blood pressure values. Correlation coefficients were significantly higher for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure than office blood pressure, whereas the SDD between visits was significantly lower for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure than office blood pressure.
These data demonstrate that long-term reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure is superior to that for office measurement. One implication of this finding is that, in long-term clinical pharmacology trials utilizing ambulatory blood pressure, fewer subjects would be required than for studies that used office blood pressure end-points.
比较在较长时间间隔重复进行研究时,已确诊高血压患者的动态血压读数和诊室血压读数的可重复性。
25名高血压患者(诊室舒张压≥90mmHg),他们至少停用降压治疗4周,并在相似研究条件下,至少间隔3个月进行重复的诊室血压和动态血压测量。
在同一天,患者先通过汞柱式血压计测量诊室血压,然后进行动态血压监测。动态血压监测持续24小时,清醒和睡眠时段根据每位患者记录的日记进行划分。以相同方式在平均±标准差为23±24个月(范围3 - 80个月,中位数15个月)的间隔进行第二项研究。通过相关系数、变异系数和差值标准差(SDD)评估两项研究之间的一致性。
两项研究的诊室、24小时、清醒和睡眠平均血压均无显著差异。24小时平均收缩压和舒张压分别比诊室血压值低16mmHg和14mmHg。24小时动态血压的相关系数显著高于诊室血压,而就诊期间24小时动态血压的SDD显著低于诊室血压。
这些数据表明,动态血压的长期可重复性优于诊室测量。这一发现的一个意义是,在利用动态血压的长期临床药理学试验中,所需的受试者比使用诊室血压终点的研究更少。