实验室中日间动态血压与眼压测量的对比:体位的影响。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Blood Pressure Monitoring Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-08 DOI:10.1097/MBP.0000000000000651
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,&nbsp;Lauri Suojanen,&nbsp;Jenni K Koskela,&nbsp;Manoj K Choudhary,&nbsp;Antti Tikkakoski,&nbsp;Mika Kähönen,&nbsp;Pasi I Nevalainen,&nbsp;Jukka Mustonen,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Lauri Suojanen,&nbsp;Jenni K Koskela,&nbsp;Manoj K Choudhary,&nbsp;Antti Tikkakoski,&nbsp;Mika Kähönen,&nbsp;Pasi I Nevalainen,&nbsp;Jukka Mustonen,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较被动抬头倾斜时桡动脉血压计记录的血压(BP)与动态记录的血压,并评估高血压的可能实验室临界值。方法:记录血压正常(n = 69),未经治疗的高血压(n = 190)和药物性高血压(n = 151)受试者。结果:平均年龄50.2岁,BMI 27.7 kg/m2,日间活动血压139/87 男性276例(65%)。仰卧位至直立位SBP的变化范围为-52至+30 mmHg,DBP为-21至+32 将仰卧和直立测量的血压平均值与动态血压进行比较。平均(仰卧+直立)收缩压实验室血压与动态水平相对应(差异+1 mmHg),而平均(仰卧+直立)DBP为4 mmHg降低(P 结论:BP对直立姿势的反应是可变的。与动态血压相比,平均(仰卧+直立)实验室截断值136/82 mmHg将76%的受试者分类为血压正常或高血压。在剩下的24%中,不一致的结果可能归因于白大褂或掩盖的高血压,或在办公室外录音时更高的体力活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Blood Pressure Monitoring
Blood Pressure Monitoring 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
110
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Could soluble ST2 levels be used to detect nondipper hypertensive subgroup in newly diagnosed hypertension patients. Validation of two automatic sphygmomanometers according to the modified International Standardization Organization 81060-2:2018 protocol in adults with a mid-upper arm circumference of 22 centimeters or less. Validation of the validity of the new wrist-type fully automatic blood pressure monitor: DBP-2242 according to ISO 81060-2:2018+AMD 1:2020. Psychological distress, forced awakening, and morning blood pressure surge. Validation of the AViTA upper-arm blood pressure monitor BP636 with multiple cuff sizes in the general population according to the ANSI/AAMI/ISO 81060-2:2018/Amd1:2020.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1