...
首页> 外文期刊>The American heart journal >Blood pressure differences between home monitoring and daytime ambulatory values and their reproducibility in treated hypertensive stroke and TIA patients
【24h】

Blood pressure differences between home monitoring and daytime ambulatory values and their reproducibility in treated hypertensive stroke and TIA patients

机译:家庭监测与白天动态价值之间的血压差异及其治疗高血压卒中和TIA患者的再现性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BackgroundGuidelines recommend ambulatory or home blood pressure monitoring to improve hypertension diagnosis and monitoring. Both these methods are ascribed the same threshold values, but whether they produce similar results has not been established in certain patient groups. MethodsAdults with mild/moderate stroke or transient ischemic attack (N = 80) completed 2 sets of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure values from contemporaneous measurements were compared, and the limits of agreement were assessed. Exploratory analyses for predictive factors of any difference were conducted. ResultsDaytime ambulatory blood pressure values were consistently lower than home values, the mean difference in systolic blood pressure for initial ambulatory versus first home monitoring was ?6.6 ± 13.5 mm Hg (P≤.001), and final ambulatory versus second home monitoring was ?7.1 ± 11.0mm Hg (P≤.001). Mean diastolic blood pressure differences were ?2.1 ± 8.5mm Hg (P=.03) and ?2.0 ± 7.2mm Hg (P=.02). Limits of agreement for systolic blood pressure were ?33.0 to 19.9mm Hg and ?28.7 to 14.5mm Hg for the 2 comparisons and for DBP were ?18.8 to 14.5mm Hg and ?16.1 to 12.2mm Hg, respectively. The individual mean change in systolic blood pressure difference was 11.0 ± 8.3mm Hg across the 2 comparisons. No predictive factors for these differences were identified. ConclusionsDaytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were significantly lower than home monitored values at both time points. Differences between the 2 methods were not reproducible for individuals. Using the same threshold value for both out-of-office measurement methods may not be appropriate in patients with cerebrovascular disease.
机译:Backgroundguidelines推荐使用寿命或家庭血压监测,以改善高血压诊断和监测。这两种方法都归因于相同的阈值,但它们是否产生类似的结果尚未在某些患者组中建立。患有轻度/中度行程或短暂性缺血攻击的方法(n = 80)完成了2套的动态和家庭血压监测。比较了同期测量的收缩系和舒张压值,并评估了一致性的限制。进行了任何差异预测因素的探索性分析。结果DIGETITY时间血压值始终低于家庭价值,其初始动态与首次家庭监测的收缩压血压平均差异是?6.6±13.5 mm Hg(P≤001),最终的动态与第二家庭监控是?7.1 ±11.0mm hg(p≤001)。平均舒张压差异是?2.1±8.5mm hg(p = .03)和?2.0±7.2mm hg(p = .02)。收缩压血压协议的限制是33.0至19.9mm Hg,2〜28.7至14.5mm Hg,2比较和DBP分别为18.8至14.5mm Hg和?16.1至12.2mm Hg。在2比较中,收缩压差的个体平均变化为11.0±8.3mm Hg。没有确定这些差异的预测因素。结论TAMETIMESTAMETIME的限制性和舒张压值显着低于两个时间点的家庭监测值。 2种方法之间的差异对个体没有可重复。使用相同的阈值对于外出测量方法可能不适合脑血管疾病的患者。

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