Mancia G, Zanchetti A, Agabiti-Rosei E, Benemio G, De Cesaris R, Fogari R, Pessina A, Porcellati C, Rappelli A, Salvetti A, Trimarco B
Cattedra di Medicina Interna, Università di Milano, Ospedale S. Gerardo, Monza (Milano), Italy.
Circulation. 1997 Mar 18;95(6):1464-70. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.95.6.1464.
In cross-sectional studies, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) correlates more closely than clinic BP with the organ damage of hypertension. Whether ABP predicts development or regression of organ damage over time better than clinic BP, however, is unknown.
In 206 essential hypertensive subjects with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), we measured clinic supine BP, 24-hour ABP, and left ventricular mass index (LVMI, echocardiography) before and after 12 months of treatment with lisinopril (20 mg UID) without or with hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 or 25 mg UID). Measurements included random-zero, clinic orthostatic, and home BP. In all, 184 subjects completed the 12-month treatment period. Before treatment, clinic supine BP was 165 +/- 15/105 +/- 5 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic), 24-hour average BP was 149 +/- 16/95 +/- 11 mm Hg, and LVMI was 158 +/- 32 g/m2. At the end of treatment, they were 139 +/- 12/87 +/- 7 mm Hg, 131 +/- 12/83 +/- 10 mm Hg, and 133 +/- 26 g/m2, respectively (P < .01 for all). Before treatment, LVMI did not correlate with clinic BP, but it showed a correlation with systolic and diastolic 24-hour average BP (r = .34/.27, P < .01). The LVMI reduction was not related to the reduction in clinic BP, but it was related to the reduction in 24-hour average BP (r = .42/.38, P < .01). Treatment-induced changes in average daytime and nighttime BPs correlated with LVMI changes as strongly as 24-hour BP changes. No substantial advantage over clinic supine BP was shown by clinic orthostatic, random-zero, and home BP.
In hypertensive subjects with LVH, regression of LVH was predicted much more closely by treatment-induced changes in ABP than in the clinic BP. This provides the first longitudinally controlled evidence that ABP may be clinically superior to traditional BP measurements.
在横断面研究中,动态血压(ABP)与高血压的器官损害之间的相关性比诊室血压更为密切。然而,ABP是否比诊室血压能更好地预测器官损害随时间的进展或逆转尚不清楚。
在206例患有左心室肥厚(LVH)的原发性高血压患者中,我们在使用赖诺普利(20mg每日一次)单药治疗或联合氢氯噻嗪(12.5或25mg每日一次)治疗12个月前后,测量了诊室仰卧位血压、24小时ABP以及左心室质量指数(LVMI,通过超声心动图测量)。测量包括随机零点血压、诊室直立位血压和家庭血压。共有184例患者完成了12个月的治疗期。治疗前,诊室仰卧位血压为165±15/105±5mmHg(收缩压/舒张压),24小时平均血压为149±16/95±11mmHg,LVMI为158±32g/m²。治疗结束时,分别为139±12/87±7mmHg、131±12/83±10mmHg和133±26g/m²(均P<.01)。治疗前,LVMI与诊室血压无相关性,但与24小时平均收缩压和舒张压相关(r=.34/.27,P<.01)。LVMI的降低与诊室血压的降低无关,但与24小时平均血压的降低有关(r=.42/.38,P<.01)。治疗引起的日间和夜间平均血压变化与LVMI变化的相关性与24小时血压变化一样强。诊室直立位血压、随机零点血压和家庭血压相对于诊室仰卧位血压未显示出实质性优势。
在患有LVH的高血压患者中,治疗引起的ABP变化比诊室血压变化更能密切预测LVH的逆转。这提供了首个纵向对照证据表明ABP在临床上可能优于传统血压测量。