Majahalme S, Turjanmaa V, Tuomisto M, Kautiainen H, Uusitalo A
Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Tampere, Finland.
Blood Press. 1997 Jan;6(1):5-12. doi: 10.3109/08037059709086439.
Our objective was to study the usefulness of BP responses to exercise compared to postural BP values for prediction of left ventricular (LV) indices in 28 normotensive (NT), 14 borderline hypertensive (BHT), and 24 mildly hypertensive (HT) men (aged 35-45 years) using intra-arterial BP, the "gold standard" measurement during a series of postures (10 min supine, 10 min sitting, 9 min standing), and exercise (isometric; hand grip, and dynamic; cycle ergometer). LV indices were studied by echocardiography. The highest postural BP correlation was obtained between LV mass index (LVMI) and standing systolic BP (SBP, r = .39, p < .01). Achieved exercise BP did not improve the result compared to standing BP (isometric SBP r = .41, p < .01, dynamic SBP r = .39, p < .01). When exercise responses were expressed as BP change (exercise BP-supine BP) they showed lower correlations with LVMI than achieved exercise BP readings. Using linear multiple regression including all the BP variables, the achieved SBP with isometric exercise explained 17% of LVMI variance (F = 12.9, p = .0006) without any additive value of other variable. In a forced linear regression using BP with various postures as the first variable, the achieved BP with dynamic exercise did not add to the explanation of LVMI variance. However the SBP during isometric exercise added 6% (F = 4.9, p < .05) for the explanation of LVMI variance with sitting SBP as baseline, and also 7% (F = 5.0, p < .05) with supine SBP and diastolic BP as baselines, but no additive value was seen with standing BP. We conclude, that BP levels during various postures were well related to LVMI. Achieved BP or BP change with dynamic exercise did not improve the prediction of the LVMI, and even the best single predictor, BP with isometric exercise, added only little to the power of prediction obtainable from postural values. With mild elevation of BP the clinical utility of dynamic exercise in evaluation of left ventricle is questionable whereas the utility of isometric exercise is marginal. Relatively low correlation values in this study suggest that BP is only one of many factors affecting the cardiac anatomy in the early phases of hypertension.
我们的目的是研究与姿势性血压值相比,运动时血压反应对预测28名血压正常(NT)、14名临界高血压(BHT)和24名轻度高血压(HT)男性(年龄35 - 45岁)左心室(LV)指标的有用性。采用动脉内血压这一“金标准”测量方法,在一系列姿势(仰卧10分钟、坐姿10分钟、站立9分钟)和运动(等长运动;握力运动,以及动态运动;踏车测力计运动)过程中进行测量。通过超声心动图研究左心室指标。左心室质量指数(LVMI)与站立收缩压(SBP)之间的姿势性血压相关性最高(r = 0.39,p < 0.01)。与站立血压相比,运动时达到的血压并未改善预测结果(等长运动收缩压r = 0.41,p < 0.01,动态运动收缩压r = 0.39,p < 0.01)。当将运动反应表示为血压变化(运动血压 - 仰卧血压)时,它们与LVMI的相关性低于运动时达到的血压读数。使用包含所有血压变量的线性多元回归分析,等长运动时达到的收缩压解释了LVMI方差的17%(F = 12.9,p = 0.0006),其他变量无附加价值。在以各种姿势的血压作为第一个变量的强制线性回归分析中,动态运动时达到的血压并未增加对LVMI方差的解释。然而,以坐姿收缩压为基线时,等长运动时的收缩压为LVMI方差的解释增加了6%(F = 4.9,p < 0.05);以仰卧收缩压和舒张压为基线时,也增加了7%(F = 5.0,p < 0.05),但以站立血压为基线时未见附加价值。我们得出结论,各种姿势下的血压水平与LVMI密切相关。动态运动时达到的血压或血压变化并未改善对LVMI的预测,即使是最佳的单一预测指标,等长运动时的血压,对从姿势性血压值获得的预测能力也仅略有增加。随着血压轻度升高,动态运动在评估左心室方面的临床实用性值得怀疑,而等长运动的实用性也很有限。本研究中相对较低的相关值表明,血压只是高血压早期影响心脏解剖结构的众多因素之一。