...
首页> 外文期刊>Blood Pressure Monitoring >Oscillometry and applanation tonometry measurements in older individuals with elevated levels of arterial stiffness
【24h】

Oscillometry and applanation tonometry measurements in older individuals with elevated levels of arterial stiffness

机译:动脉僵硬度水平升高的老年人的示波法和压平眼压法测量

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective Indices of arterial stiffness and aortic pressure are usually assessed by applanation tonometry. The more recently introduced oscillometric device is simpler to use. Several studies have investigated the agreement between these two devices, but not in populations with elevated levels of arterial stiffness. Therefore, we evaluated the agreement in an elderly population with high risk of arterial stiffness. Patients and methods We included a subgroup of the B-PROOF study (n= 344, mean age 73 years, 60% men), whose aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV), aortic augmentation index (AIx), aortic pulse pressure (PP), and aortic systolic blood pressure (SBP) were assessed both with applanation tonometry (SphygmoCor) and with oscillometry (Arteriograph). We investigated agreement between the two devices using Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman analysis. We carried out a stratified analysis in participants with more pronounced arterial stiffness (SphygmoCor aPWV > 12 m/s). Results The oscillometric method produced higher values of AIx, aortic PP, and aortic SBP (P <0.01) than applanation tonometry. aPWV values were lower (P < 0.01) and were not correlated (r= - 0.06, P = 0.92), whereas AIx measurements (r= 0.35 P <0.01), aortic PP (r =0.57 P < 0.01), and aortic SBP (r= 0.68 P < 0.01) measurements were correlated. Bland-Altman analysis showed insufficient agreement between the two devices, especially in those with elevated levels of arterial stiffness (aPWV > 12 m/s). Conclusion Particularly in the elderly with elevated levels of arterial stiffness, measurements of aPWV obtained with oscillometry and applanation tonometry show poor agreement. Also, AIx, aortic SBP, and aortic PP show clearly less than optimal agreement. Blood Press Monit 18:332-338
机译:客观指标动脉僵硬度和主动脉压力通常通过压平眼压计评估。最近推出的示波设备更易于使用。几项研究调查了这两种装置之间的一致性,但并未研究动脉僵硬程度升高的人群。因此,我们评估了具有高动脉僵硬度风险的老年人群的一致性。患者和方法我们纳入了一项B-PROOF研究的子组(n = 344,平均年龄73岁,男性60%),其主动脉脉搏波速度(aPWV),主动脉扩张指数(AIx),主动脉脉压(PP) ,通过压平眼压法(SphygmoCor)和示波法(Arteriograph)评估主动脉收缩压(SBP)。我们使用Pearson相关性和Bland-Altman分析研究了两种设备之间的一致性。我们对具有较明显动脉僵硬度(SphygmoCor aPWV> 12 m / s)的参与者进行了分层分析。结果示波法比压平眼压法产生更高的AIx值,主动脉PP和主动脉SBP(P <0.01)。 aPWV值较低(P <0.01)并且不相关(r =-0.06,P = 0.92),而AIx测量值(r = 0.35 P <0.01),主动脉PP(r = 0.57 P <0.01)和主动脉SBP (r = 0.68 P <0.01)测量值相关。 Bland-Altman分析显示这两种装置之间的一致性不足,尤其是在动脉僵硬度水平升高(aPWV> 12 m / s)的装置中。结论尤其是在动脉僵硬度水平升高的老年人中,通过示波法和压平眼压法获得的aPWV测量值显示出较差的一致性。同样,AIx,主动脉SBP和主动脉PP明显不及最佳协议。 Blood Press Monit 18:332-338

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号