Emmi Värri, Lauri Suojanen, Jenni K Koskela, Manoj K Choudhary, Antti Tikkakoski, Mika Kähönen, Pasi I Nevalainen, Jukka Mustonen, Ilkka Pörsti
{"title":"实验室中日间动态血压与眼压测量的对比:体位的影响。","authors":"Emmi Värri, Lauri Suojanen, Jenni K Koskela, Manoj K Choudhary, Antti Tikkakoski, Mika Kähönen, Pasi I Nevalainen, Jukka Mustonen, Ilkka Pörsti","doi":"10.1097/MBP.0000000000000651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare blood pressure (BP) in tonometric radial artery recordings during passive head-up tilt with ambulatory recordings and evaluate possible laboratory cutoff values for hypertension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Laboratory BP and ambulatory BP were recorded in normotensive (n = 69), unmedicated hypertensive (n = 190), and medicated hypertensive (n = 151) subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean age was 50.2 years, BMI 27.7 kg/m 2 , ambulatory daytime BP 139/87 mmHg, and 276 were male (65%). As supine-to-upright changes in SBP ranged from -52 to +30 mmHg, and in DBP from -21 to +32 mmHg, the mean values of BP supine and upright measurements were compared with ambulatory BP. The mean(supine+upright) systolic laboratory BP was corresponding to ambulatory level (difference +1 mmHg), while mean(supine+upright) DBP was 4 mmHg lower ( P < 0.05) than ambulatory value. Correlograms indicated that laboratory 136/82 mmHg corresponded to ambulatory 135/85 mmHg. When compared with ambulatory 135/85 mmHg, the sensitivity and specificity of laboratory 136/82 mmHg to define hypertension were 71.5% and 77.3% for SBP, and 71.7% and 72.8%, for DBP, respectively. The laboratory cutoff 136/82 mmHg classified 311/410 subjects similarly to ambulatory BP as normotensive or hypertensive, 68 were hypertensive only in ambulatory, while 31 were hypertensive only in laboratory measurements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BP responses to upright posture were variable. When compared with ambulatory BP, mean(supine+upright) laboratory cutoff 136/82 mmHg classified 76% of subjects similarly as normotensive or hypertensive. In the remaining 24% the discordant results may be attributed to white-coat or masked hypertension, or higher physical activity during out-of-office recordings.</p>","PeriodicalId":8950,"journal":{"name":"Blood Pressure Monitoring","volume":"28 4","pages":"199-207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10309093/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ambulatory daytime blood pressure versus tonometric blood pressure measurements in the laboratory: effect of posture.\",\"authors\":\"Emmi Värri, Lauri Suojanen, Jenni K Koskela, Manoj K Choudhary, Antti Tikkakoski, Mika Kähönen, Pasi I Nevalainen, Jukka Mustonen, Ilkka Pörsti\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MBP.0000000000000651\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare blood pressure (BP) in tonometric radial artery recordings during passive head-up tilt with ambulatory recordings and evaluate possible laboratory cutoff values for hypertension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Laboratory BP and ambulatory BP were recorded in normotensive (n = 69), unmedicated hypertensive (n = 190), and medicated hypertensive (n = 151) subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean age was 50.2 years, BMI 27.7 kg/m 2 , ambulatory daytime BP 139/87 mmHg, and 276 were male (65%). As supine-to-upright changes in SBP ranged from -52 to +30 mmHg, and in DBP from -21 to +32 mmHg, the mean values of BP supine and upright measurements were compared with ambulatory BP. The mean(supine+upright) systolic laboratory BP was corresponding to ambulatory level (difference +1 mmHg), while mean(supine+upright) DBP was 4 mmHg lower ( P < 0.05) than ambulatory value. Correlograms indicated that laboratory 136/82 mmHg corresponded to ambulatory 135/85 mmHg. When compared with ambulatory 135/85 mmHg, the sensitivity and specificity of laboratory 136/82 mmHg to define hypertension were 71.5% and 77.3% for SBP, and 71.7% and 72.8%, for DBP, respectively. The laboratory cutoff 136/82 mmHg classified 311/410 subjects similarly to ambulatory BP as normotensive or hypertensive, 68 were hypertensive only in ambulatory, while 31 were hypertensive only in laboratory measurements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BP responses to upright posture were variable. When compared with ambulatory BP, mean(supine+upright) laboratory cutoff 136/82 mmHg classified 76% of subjects similarly as normotensive or hypertensive. In the remaining 24% the discordant results may be attributed to white-coat or masked hypertension, or higher physical activity during out-of-office recordings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Blood Pressure Monitoring\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"199-207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10309093/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Blood Pressure Monitoring\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0000000000000651\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Pressure Monitoring","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0000000000000651","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ambulatory daytime blood pressure versus tonometric blood pressure measurements in the laboratory: effect of posture.
Objective: To compare blood pressure (BP) in tonometric radial artery recordings during passive head-up tilt with ambulatory recordings and evaluate possible laboratory cutoff values for hypertension.
Methods: Laboratory BP and ambulatory BP were recorded in normotensive (n = 69), unmedicated hypertensive (n = 190), and medicated hypertensive (n = 151) subjects.
Results: Mean age was 50.2 years, BMI 27.7 kg/m 2 , ambulatory daytime BP 139/87 mmHg, and 276 were male (65%). As supine-to-upright changes in SBP ranged from -52 to +30 mmHg, and in DBP from -21 to +32 mmHg, the mean values of BP supine and upright measurements were compared with ambulatory BP. The mean(supine+upright) systolic laboratory BP was corresponding to ambulatory level (difference +1 mmHg), while mean(supine+upright) DBP was 4 mmHg lower ( P < 0.05) than ambulatory value. Correlograms indicated that laboratory 136/82 mmHg corresponded to ambulatory 135/85 mmHg. When compared with ambulatory 135/85 mmHg, the sensitivity and specificity of laboratory 136/82 mmHg to define hypertension were 71.5% and 77.3% for SBP, and 71.7% and 72.8%, for DBP, respectively. The laboratory cutoff 136/82 mmHg classified 311/410 subjects similarly to ambulatory BP as normotensive or hypertensive, 68 were hypertensive only in ambulatory, while 31 were hypertensive only in laboratory measurements.
Conclusion: BP responses to upright posture were variable. When compared with ambulatory BP, mean(supine+upright) laboratory cutoff 136/82 mmHg classified 76% of subjects similarly as normotensive or hypertensive. In the remaining 24% the discordant results may be attributed to white-coat or masked hypertension, or higher physical activity during out-of-office recordings.
期刊介绍:
Blood Pressure Monitoring is devoted to original research in blood pressure measurement and blood pressure variability. It includes device technology, analytical methodology of blood pressure over time and its variability, clinical trials - including, but not limited to, pharmacology - involving blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure reactivity, patient evaluation, and outcomes and effectiveness research.
This innovative journal contains papers dealing with all aspects of manual, automated, and ambulatory monitoring. Basic and clinical science papers are considered although the emphasis is on clinical medicine.
Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.