Suppr超能文献

诊室血压和实验室血压作为正常血压受试者、临界高血压和轻度高血压受试者日常血压水平的预测指标。

Office and laboratory blood pressures as predictors of daily blood pressure level in normotensive subjects and borderline and mild hypertensive subjects.

作者信息

Majahalme S, Turjanmaa V, Weder A B, Lu H, Tuomisto M, Uusitalo A

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Tampere, Finland.

出版信息

Clin Physiol. 1998 May;18(3):215-23. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2281.1998.00095.x.

Abstract

A series of standardized laboratory tests [10 min sitting and supine, 9 min standing, dynamic; cycle ergometer (ERG) and isometric exercise; handgrip (HG)] were performed during intra-arterial blood pressure (BP) recording in 97 healthy unmedicated men, initially classified as normotensive (NT, n = 34), borderline hypertensive (BHT, n = 29) or mildly hypertensive (HT, n = 34) by repeated office blood pressure (OBP) measurements. After testing, a 24-h intra-arterial ambulatory BP (IABP) recording was obtained while subjects performed their normal activities. Day and night periods were analysed as well as 24-h averages for systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) using Pearson correlations and multiple linear regressions. In normotensive subjects, the supine SBP predicted IABP measurements best (r range 0.39-0.69, P < 0.05-0.001). In multiple regression, supine SBP explained 49% of 24-h SBP variance (F = 12.4, P = 0.001). For BHT, supine SBP was also the best predictor (r range 0.09-0.64, P NS to P < 0.001), and it explained 37% of 24-h SBP variance (F = 15.6, P = 0.0005). In HT, ERG DBP correlated best with IABP (r range 0.52-0.75, P < 0.01-0.001). ERG SBP explained 49% of 24-h SBP (F = 31.0, P = 0.0000) and ERG DBP explained 56% of 24-h DBP (F = 35.4, P = 0.0000) variance. Laboratory BP correlations were generally better with day than with night measurements. OSBP correlated moderately well with IABP in NT, and weakly in BHT and HT; ODBP instead correlated with IABP in NT and HT but not significantly in BHT. In conclusion, OBP is less closely related to IABP than laboratory BP, but even laboratory BP generally explains less than 50% of IABP variance. Stressors such as exercise are useful only in HT. For BHT, the prediction of IABP with laboratory measures was even weaker than in other groups, and thus ambulatory measurements cannot be replaced by short-duration laboratory measurements and stress tests.

摘要

在97名未服用药物的健康男性进行动脉内血压(BP)记录期间,进行了一系列标准化实验室测试[10分钟坐姿和仰卧位、9分钟站立位、动态;自行车测力计(ERG)和等长运动;握力(HG)]。这些男性最初通过重复的诊室血压(OBP)测量被分类为血压正常(NT,n = 34)、临界高血压(BHT,n = 29)或轻度高血压(HT,n = 34)。测试后,在受试者进行正常活动时获得24小时动脉内动态血压(IABP)记录。使用Pearson相关性和多元线性回归分析白天和夜间时段以及收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)的24小时平均值。在血压正常的受试者中,仰卧位SBP对IABP测量的预测最佳(r范围为0.39 - 0.69,P < 0.05 - 0.001)。在多元回归中仰卧位SBP解释了24小时SBP方差的49%(F = 12.4,P = 0.001)。对于BHT,仰卧位SBP也是最佳预测指标(r范围为0.09 - 0.64,P无统计学意义至P < 0.001),并且它解释了24小时SBP方差的37%(F = 15.6,P = 0.0005)。在HT中,ERG DBP与IABP的相关性最佳(r范围为0.52 - 0.75,P < 0.01 - 0.001)。ERG SBP解释了24小时SBP的49%(F = 31.0,P = 0.0000),ERG DBP解释了2小时DBP方差的56%(F = 35.4,P = 0.0000)。实验室血压相关性通常白天测量比夜间测量更好。在NT中OSBP与IABP中度相关,在BHT和HT中相关性较弱;相反,ODBP在NT和HT中与IABP相关,但在BHT中无显著相关性。总之,OBP与IABP的关系不如实验室血压密切,但即使是实验室血压通常也只能解释不到50%的IABP方差。运动等应激源仅在HT中有用。对于BHT,用实验室测量预测IABP甚至比其他组更弱,因此动态测量不能被短时间的实验室测量和应激测试所取代。

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