首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到16条相似文献,搜索用时 156 毫秒
1.
目的以24 h动态血压监测评价复方替米沙坦治疗轻中度原发性高血压患者的疗效。方法选择28例轻中度高血压患者,予以复方替米沙坦1~2片(每片含替米沙坦40 mg,氢氯噻嗪12.5 mg),po,qd,治疗8 wk,分别于治疗前后行24 h动态血压监测并计算其谷峰比值、平滑指数后进行比较分析。结果治疗8 wk后24 h平均收缩压、舒张压,日间平均收缩压、舒张压,夜间平均收缩压、舒张压与治疗前比较均有显著性降低(P<0.01),收缩压、舒张压负荷也有显著降低(P<0.01)。收缩压谷峰比值为62.4%,舒张压谷峰比值为65.6%,收缩压平滑指数为1.08±0.36,舒张压平滑指数为1.13±0.22。结论复方替米沙坦具有良好的降压效果及满意的谷峰比值、平滑指数,临床使用安全。  相似文献   

2.
动态血压监测评价替米沙坦的降压效果   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
目的以24h动态血压监测评价替米沙坦治疗轻、中度原发性高血压患者的疗效。方法选择30例轻中度高血压患者,予以替米沙坦80mg/d治疗8周,分别于治疗前后行24h动态血压监测并计算其谷峰比值、平滑指数后进行比较分析。结果治疗8周后24h平均收缩压、舒张压;日间平均收缩压、舒张压;夜间平均收缩压、舒张压与治疗前比较均有显著性降低(P<0.01),收缩压、舒张压负荷也有显著降低(P<0.01)。收缩压谷峰比值为63.2%,舒张压谷峰比值65.8%,收缩压平滑指数为(1.08±0.34),舒张压平滑指数为(1.12±0.23)。结论替米沙坦具有良好的降压效果及满意的谷峰比值、平滑指数,临床应用安全。  相似文献   

3.
目的:探讨长效降压药使用24h动态血压监测(24hABPM)进行疗效评价时临床试验操作要点和相关指标定量分析方法。方法:结合相关文献和国际指南,对动态血压数据采集和记录方法,谷峰比值计算方法进行介绍。以一个实例的模拟数据计算谷峰比值和平滑指数等降压疗效指标。结果:谷峰比值群体计算法结果较个体计算法显著。ABPM达标受试者收缩压的谷峰比值和平滑指数,试验组高于对照组(P<0.05);而全部病例进行分析时相应指标无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:计算谷峰比值和平滑指数时需分别采用群体计算法和个体计算法,并同时考量以评价平稳降压疗效。需对所有受试者和ABPM达标者分别分析。  相似文献   

4.
降压药物降压作用谷/峰比值是近年出现的一个能同时评价降压药物降压幅度和疗效持续时间的新指标。一个一日只需服用1次,降压作用能平稳持续24h的长效降压药物的谷/峰比值,应至少在50%以上。目前,谷/峰比值主要用于制定降压药物的用药方案,指导个体化治疗。由于研究方法尚未统一规范,目前对如何测定降压药物的降压作用谷/峰比值存在着广泛的探讨。  相似文献   

5.
抗高血压药物降压作用谷/峰比值的应用与探讨   总被引:18,自引:0,他引:18  
降压药物降压作用谷/峰比值是近年出现的一个能同时评价降压药物降压幅度和疗效持续时间的新指标。一个一日只需服用1次,降压作用能平稳持续24h的长效降压药的的谷/峰比值,应至少在50%以上。目前,谷/峰比值主要主要地制定降压药物的用药方案,指导个体化治疗。由于研究方法尚未统一规范,目前对如何测定降压药物的降压作用谷/峰比值存在着广泛的探讨。  相似文献   

6.
动态血压观察非洛地平缓释片的降压疗效   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
目的 :采用动态血压监测仪观察非洛地平缓释片的降压疗效。方法 :非洛地平缓释片 5~ 10mg ,po ,qd× 2wk治疗 31例高血压病人 (男性 18例 ,女性 13例 ,年龄 53a±s 7a)。结果 :治疗前后2 4h平均血压、夜晚和白昼 (最高、最低 )的平均血压及血压负荷值自身对照比较差别有非常显著意义(P <0 .0 1)。降低收缩压和舒张压的谷/峰比值分别为 0 .64± 0 .2 3和 0 .70± 0 .2 2。结论 :非洛地平缓释片有较好谷/峰比值 ,提示该药每日 1次服法可在 2 4h内稳定控制血压  相似文献   

7.
目的:比较福辛普利与卡托普利治疗老年高血压病的疗效.方法:应用动态血压监测30例老年高血压病患者po福辛普利(10~20 mg)4wk后的降压疗效,并与卡托普利组相对比.结果:服药前后两组偶测血压及24h白昼平均压、24h最高血压均明显降低(P<0.05).福辛普利对夜间血压呈一致性下降,降压谷/峰比值收缩压与舒张压均>50%.且无严重不良反应.结论:福辛普利治疗老年高血压病安全而有效.  相似文献   

8.
目的 24h动态血压监测(ABPM)评价小剂量阿罗洛尔联合左旋氨氯地平对中青年轻中度高血压患者的降压效果及糖脂代谢的影响。方法选择中青年轻中度原发性高血压患者,口服小剂量阿罗洛尔5mg,2次/d和左旋氨氯地平2.5mg,1次/d,在服药前及服药8周后分别记录24h平均血压、白天平均血压、夜间平均血压并进行比较,计算患者用药前后24 h收缩压、舒张压平滑指数和谷峰比值,观察两种药物联合降压疗效和耐受性。结果共完成试验68例,治疗8周后24h平均血压、白天平均血压、夜间平均血压明显低于治疗前,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05);谷峰比值为收缩压74%,舒张压72%。平滑指数为收缩压(1.49±0.38)mmHg,舒张压(1.43±0.40)mmHg;对患者血糖、血脂及其他生化指标无不良影响。结论小剂量阿罗洛尔联合左旋氨氯地平对中青年轻中度高血压患者的降压效果显著,降压平稳,而且不良反应少,为理想的联合降压方案之一。  相似文献   

9.
目的 :比较氨氯地平和比索洛尔降压疗效、谷峰比值 (T/P)及对微循环的影响。方法 :6 0例原发性高血压 (EH)病人随机分为 2组 ,各 30例 ,分别给予氨氯地平和比索洛尔治疗 ,均为 5mg ,po ,qd×6wk。结果 :2组的降压总有效率分别是 93%和 90%。 2组降压幅度比较 ,P >0 .0 5。 2组间动态血压下降幅度比较 ,氨氯地平降低 2 4h ,舒张压幅度较比索洛尔大 ,P <0 .0 1。而 2 4h收缩压无显著性差异 ,P >0 .0 5。降压T/P比值均大于 50 % ,氨氯地平组和比索洛尔组均可改善甲皱微循环 ,但氨氯地平较比索洛尔改善更明显 ,P <0 .0 1。结论 :2药的降压疗效相似。但氨氯地平降压T/P比值较比索洛尔大。氨氯地平改善病人的甲皱微循环较比索洛尔更明显  相似文献   

10.
郎群峰 《海峡药学》2009,21(5):112-114
目的研究国产苯磺酸氨氯地平片剂对原发性高血压患者诊室血压(CBP)和动态血压的影响。方法应用动态血压监测及诊室血压测定方法。考察62例高血压患者经国产苯磺酸氨氟地平治疗4周前后24h血压、白昼及夜阀平均血压等的变化,并计算谷峰比值。结果治疗4周后.CBP、24h、白昼及夜间平均血压均显著降低。总有效率为89.5%。收缩压和舒张压的24h降压疗效谷/峰比值分别为77.23%和72.36%。结论每日1次口服国产苯磺酸氨氯地平片剂可维持24h平穗降压。  相似文献   

11.
OBJECTIVE: To assess, by smoothness index (SI), distribution of the antihypertensive effect of extended-release (ER) felodipine over 24 hours in elderly patients with hypertension. METHODS: After a 4-week washout phase, 35 elderly patients (mean age 69 +/- 4 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension received 2 weeks' treatment with ER felodipine 5mg once daily. The dosage of ER felodipine was doubled to 10 mg/day and given for a further 2 weeks in non-responders (sitting clinic blood pressure > 140/90mm Hg). The study had an open-label design with no placebo control. After each period, clinic and ambulatory blood pressures were measured. Trough-to-peak (T/P) ratio was computed by dividing the blood pressure (BP) change at trough (22 to 24 hours after drug intake) by the change at peak (2 adjacent hours with a maximal BP reduction between the second and eighth hour after drug intake). SI was calculated as the ratio between the average of the 24, hourly, treatment-induced BP changes and its standard deviation. RESULTS: After the initial 2-week treatment period, clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BP values were higher in non-responders (145 +/- 11/87 +/- 8 and 135 +/- 17/80 +/- 6mm Hg, respectively) than in responders (133 +/- 6/81 +/- 3 and 130 +/- 9/77 +/- 7mm Hg). In non-responders, clinic and 24-hour BP values were lowered after a further 2 weeks of treatment with ER felodipine 10 mg/day (128 +/- 11/78 +/- 6 and 128 +/- 12/75 +/- 5mm Hg). SI was high in responders (0.8 +/- 0.8/0.7 +/- 0.7 for systolic/diastolic BP) and low in non-responders (0.5 +/- 0.6/0.3 +/- 0.6) during the first 2-week treatment period. It increased in non-responders after an additional 2 weeks of treatment with ER felodipine 10 mg/day (1.0 +/- 0.8/0.7 +/- 0.6). Median T/P ratios were 0.73 and 0.61 (systolic BP and diastolic BP) in responders and 0.41 and 0.61 in non-responders after 2 weeks of treatment. At variance with SI, T/P ratios did not increase in non-responders after doubling the dosage of ER felodipine (0.34 and 0.18). ER felodipine did not increase 24-hour heart rate. A total of nine adverse events were recorded in six patients (17%), but no patients withdrew from the study. CONCLUSION: ER felodipine 5 to 10 mg/day smoothly and safely reduces 24-hour ambulatory BP in elderly patients with hypertension.  相似文献   

12.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the time-effect profiles of a once-daily administered valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine on blood pressure using various indices derived from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. METHODS: Of the 310 randomized outpatients with uncomplicated mild-to-moderate primary hypertension, 259 (133 on valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, 126 on amlodipine) were eligible for analysis. After a 2-week placebo wash-out period, the patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either valsartan 80 mg once daily (o.d.) or amlodipine 5 mg o.d. for 4 weeks; in the case of an unsatisfactory blood pressure response, the treatments could be respectively changed to the fixed combination of valsartan 80 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg o.d. or amlodipine 10 mg o.d. for a further 8 weeks. The trough:peak ratio (global and individualized approaches) and smoothness index (i.e., the ratio between the average of the 24-hourly BP changes after treatment and the corresponding standard deviation) were calculated from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure recordings made after the placebo period and after 4 weeks and 12 weeks of active treatment. RESULTS: Both regimens effectively lowered systolic and diastolic ambulatory pressures after 4 weeks and 12 weeks (all P<0.001) but, among the responders, the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination had a greater antihypertensive effect during the night-time hours after 12 weeks (P=0.03/0.02). In the responders, the placebo-adjusted, mean trough:peak ratios were 0.76/0.74 in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group (n = 111) and 0.66/0.62 in the amlodipine group (n = 101). The corresponding global trough:peak ratios were 0.61/0.57 for the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and 0.56/0.56 for amlodipine. However, the between-group differences in individual or global trough:peak ratios were not significant. The smoothness index was slightly, but insignificantly, greater for valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide than for amlodipine in the responders and the groups as a whole. CONCLUSION: Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine were equally effective in reducing ambulatory BP, but the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination led to more homogeneous BP control during the inter-dosing interval. Trough:peak ratio and smoothness index did not reflect this finding accurately.  相似文献   

13.
坎地沙坦酯对高血压谷峰比值、平滑指数的影响   总被引:4,自引:1,他引:3  
目的探讨坎地沙坦酯治疗轻中度原发性高血压的疗效及对患者血压谷峰比值和平滑指数的影响。方法50例轻中度原发性高血压患者,口服坎地沙坦酯8mg,每天1次,疗程4周,于治疗前后进行24h动态血压监测并计算其谷峰比值(T/P)和平滑指数。结果治疗4周后,24h平均收缩压(148.2±10.7)mmHg和24h平均舒张压(97.6±6.5)mm Hg、白昼平均收缩压(152.5±9.8)mm Hg和平均舒张压(96.0±5.3)mmHg、夜间平均收缩压(138.3±7.6)mmHg和平均舒张压(89.2±8.3)mmHg、收缩压负荷值(87.5±12.2)%和舒张压负荷值(36.48±26.4)%与治疗前的(130.2±7.2)mmHg、(79.5±7.8)mm Hg、(133.4±7.2)mmHg、(81.8±6.6)mmHg、(121.9±7.3)mmHg、(72.1±7.4)mmHg、(84.7±9.9)%、(26.7±8.3)%比较差异均有统计学意义(均P〈0.01);治疗后收缩压和舒张压T/P分别为70%和63%、平滑指数分别为(1.21±0.82)和(1.13±0.51),均符合要求。结论坎地沙坦酯治疗原发性高血压安全有效,均能获得良好的T/P比值及平滑指数。  相似文献   

14.
OBJECTIVE: To compare lisinopril with telmisartan, in regard to: 1) their effect on blood pressure (BP) and pulse pressure (PP), and 2) the duration and the homogeneity of their antihypertensive effect. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative study of telmisartan 80 mg versus lisinopril 20 mg was conducted in 32 untreated hypertensive patients using clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements. Trough: peak ratio (TPR) and smoothness index (SI) were calculated for each drug. RESULTS: Using both measurement techniques no difference was detected between the 2 drugs in their effects either on BP (mean difference in 24-hour systolic BP 1.2 +/- 7.1 mm Hg, 95% confidence intervals -1.4, 3.8, and diastolic 0.7 +/- 5.1, -1.2, 2.5) or on PP (0.5 +/- 3.5, -0.7, 1.8). There was no difference between the TPR and the SI values of telmisartan (TPR 0.85/0.61 for systolic/diastolic BP and SI 1.46/1.2) and lisinopril (TPR 0.74/0.64 and SI 1.3/1.17). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that telmisartan is as effective as lisinopril in reducing BP and PP. Both drugs seem to provide smooth and sustained effects throughout the full 24-hour period.  相似文献   

15.
目的 用动态血压监测,探讨谷峰比值(T/P)和平滑指数(SI)的合理计算方法,为临床长效降压药的评价提供依据。方法 患者服用伊贝沙坦和吲哒帕胺缓释片;治疗前后用动态血压监测结果,比较整体和个体2种方法计算T/P和SI值。结果 整体计算法:伊贝沙坦的T/P分别为收缩压为71.22%,舒张压为68.47%,吲哒帕胺缓释片为93.18%和65.67%;伊贝沙坦收缩压和舒张压的SI分别为4.20和2.54,吲哒帕胺缓释片为4.28和3.02。个体计算法:T/P和SI的所有指标均低于整体计算法。结论 建议采用个体法计算T/P;据整体法计算SI考虑药物降压平稳性,同时计算其个体SI。  相似文献   

16.
目的 :评价多沙唑嗪控释片对轻、中度高血压病病人降压有效性及安全性。方法 :采用双盲、双模拟、随机化、平行对照研究方法。 5 8例服多沙唑嗪控释片 4mg ,poqd× 8wk ,5 6例服贝那普利 10mg ,poqd× 8wk。此外 ,对 3 3例开放服多沙唑嗪控释片 4mg ,qd× 8wk。服药前后行 2 4h动态血压监测 (2 4hABPM)。结果 :2组均能有效地降压 ,有效率分别为 81%及 77% (P >0 .0 5 )。多沙唑嗪组不良反应明显少于贝那普利组 (3 %及 2 0 % ) ,P <0 .0 1,无体位性低血压及反射性心动过速。 2 4hABPM示等幅度降日间血压及夜间血压。谷 /峰比值 :SBP为 0 .69,DBP为 0 .5 9。结论 :多沙唑嗪控释片是一种有效安全的长效肾上腺素α1受体阻滞剂。  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号