社区老年高血压患者用药情况分析

目的:调查社区老年(≥60岁)高血压患者降压药物的使用情况.方法:通过直接问卷的方式,调查海盐县核电社区老年高血压患者560例,按年龄对其进行分组,分别对治疗率、达标率、降压治疗方法和用药种类、用药数量进行分析.结果:该社区老年高血压患者治疗率较高,达93.2％,但大多数为单药治疗(62.9％),联合用药者仅占37.1％,总达标率60.9％,且年龄越大者,达标率相对较低.使用药物以血管紧张素转换酶受体阻滞剂、钙拮抗剂以及血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂为主,且联合用药的达标效果较好.结论:海盐县核电社区老年人高血压治疗率、达标率均较高,可能与社区高血压宣传以及文化、经济条件好有关,且部分患者侧重单药治疗,联合用药少以及群体用药依从关系等影响了药物达标效果.     

脑卒中后高血压的用药

[问]请问脑卒中后高血压的药物用哪些好？ [答]对于脑卒中后高血压的药物治疗，有两个方案：①血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂（ACEI）或血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂（ARB）＋利尿药＋钙拮抗剂；②ACEI或ARB＋利尿药＋B，受体拮抗剂。     

高血压合并糖尿病患者降压用药情况调查分析

目的：了解高血压合并糖尿病患者的用药现状，分析其降压药物使用情况，为合理治疗提供依据。方法：将入选病例分为观察组（高血压合并糖尿病）和对照组（未合并糖尿病），回顾性调查两组患者降压药物使用情况，包括降压药的使用种类、频率及联合用药情况。结果：观察组降压治疗方案中使用较多的是血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂（A-CEI）和血管紧张素Ⅱ受体阻断药（ARB），其平均服用降压药物种类要显著多于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论：对于合并糖尿病的高血压患者，应综合分析其危险水平、降压疗效、对临床终点事件的影响、治疗的依从性和安全性及经济状况等，构建合理的治疗方案。     

浅谈抗高血压药的应用

抗高血压药合理应用能有效抑制血压升高，并减少或防止心、脑、肾等并发症，包括心衰、猝死等，从而降低发病率及死亡率延长寿命，根据药物在高血压调节系统中的主要影响及部位，主要有①影响血容量的抗高血压药有利尿药氢氯噻嗪等。②B受体阻断药有普茶洛尔，选择性及受体阻断药美托洛尔等。③钙拈抗药硝苯地平、非格地平等。④影响血管紧张素Ⅱ形成的抗高血压药-血管紧张素转化酶抑制剂卡托普利、贝那普利等。抗高血压药长期单独使用后（特别是肾病患者，需血压下降到140mmHg／90mmHg以下），效果不明显，加大剂量易引起不良反应难以继续使用。以降低各药剂量联合用药，疗效增强不良反应减少为准。噻嗪类利尿药，B受体阻断药，钙通道阻滞药，血管紧张素软化酶抑制药为治疗高血压的一线药物。如病人对一种药效果不明显，可加作用机制不同的另一种药。     

上海市杨浦区某社区卫生服务中心门诊高血压患者药物治疗方案分析

根据上海市杨浦区长白社区卫生服务中心数据库中2009年所有高血压患者使用的降压药物,整理出患者降压治疗方案,剔除所有治疗方案不确定者（包括换药过频方案不确定者及偶尔来本中心就诊尚不能确定方案者）,进行统计分析。结果显示,4102例高血压患者药物使用情况为：钙拮抗剂（CCB）占45．6％,血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂（ACEI）占16．0％,血管紧张素受体拮抗剂（ARB）占3．6％,B受体阻滞剂占9．0％,利尿剂4．7％,复方制剂占21．1％。降压方案为：使用单药的占68．0％,二联用药的占29．3％,三联用药的占2．6％,四联用药的占0．1％,其中二联用药方案中以CCB为基础的占75．8％,三联及四联用药方案均以CCB为基础组合而成。提示,本社区门诊高血压患者使用降压药物种类和联合降压方案基本符合国际高血压治疗指南,但是单一降压药物使用比例较高,联合降压的比例仍偏低。     

降压药物在老年高血压病患者中的应用分析

目的 分析老年高血压病患者使用降压药物的情况.方法 选择2008年1月-2010年1月我院门诊治疗的原发性老年高血压患者900例,分析其降压药物的应用情况.结果 ①老年高血压患者收缩压控制理想(<140mmHg)的占51%,舒张压控制率优于收缩压控制率;②降压药物使用由高到低依次是:钙离子阻滞剂、血管紧张素转化酶抑制剂、-受体拮抗剂、血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂(ARB)、利尿剂、直接舒张血管平滑肌药;③踝部水肿、低血钾、干咳、心动过缓、体位性低血压等为其主要副作用.结论 老年高血压病降压药物使用基本符合规范,部分患者存在药物不良反应.     

高血压患者的治疗

目的讨论高血压患者的治疗.方法根据患者临床表现结合检查结果进行诊断并治疗.结论临床上常用的降压药物主要有六大类:利尿药、α-受体阻断药、钙通道阻汤药(CCBs)、血管紧张素转换酶抑制药(ACEI)、β-受体阻断药以及血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗药(ARBs).临床试验结果证实几种降血压药物,均能减少高血压并发症.非药物治疗是高血压的基础治疗,主要通过改善不合理的生活方式,减低危险因素水平,进而使血压水平下降.     

利尿药在抗高血压治疗中的应用及其限度

通常可以根据抗高血压药物的作用部位将其分为以下6类[1,2];利尿药、钙通道阻滞药、肾上腺素受体阻断药、扩血管药、血管紧张素转换酶抑制药(ACEI)和血管紧张素Ⅱ受体(AT1)阻断(ARB)也有许多文献将其分为8类或更多[3-7],其中主要区别是将肾上腺素受体阻断药分为中枢性抗高血压药、β受体阻断药和受体阻断药.在本文中,笔者仅对应用时间最长、临床常用于抗高血压的首选药或联合用药中不可缺少的利尿药阐述如下.     

药物基因检测在我院高血压患者中的应用效果

目的:分析我院老年病科高血压患者人群的五类降压药物敏感性,通过药物基因检测技术个体化选择降压药物,为高血压患者提供个体化精准药物治疗方案。方法:选取2019年1月—2020年4月在我院老年病科住院的68例初发高血压患者,其中32例患者进行药物基因检测,通过筛选降压药物基因敏感性靶点给予降压药物,36例患者按照指南经验性给予降压药物。比较2组降压药物的临床疗效。采用t检验比较2组患者年龄、体质量指数、肝肾功能、血压水平、心率。采用χ~2检验比较2组间性别、给药后2周血压达标率的差异。结果:研究组32例患者中,对钙通道阻滞剂类敏感性强的占62.5%,对β受体阻滞剂类敏感性强的占50.0%,对血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂敏感性强的占37.5%,对血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂敏感性强的占87.5%,对利尿剂敏感性强的占37.5%。给药后2周血压达标率,研究组(100.00%)高于对照组(72.22%)。2组间不良反应率的差异无统计学意义。结论:通过药物基因检测技术,个体化精准的给予降压药物,有利于高血压患者更快更好的控制血压。     

新疆地区高血压合并2型糖尿病患者的抗高血压药物治疗分析

目的了解新疆地区高血压合并2型糖尿病患者的抗高血压药物治疗现状,并加以分析,以提高其治疗水平。方法通过问卷调查及随访,分析64例高血压合并2型糖尿病患者降压药物治疗情况。结果64例患者中,应用钙离子拮抗剂39例(60.94%),血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂29例(45.31%),β-受体阻滞剂13例(20.31%),利尿剂11例(17.18%),血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂9例(14.06%);其中单一用药34例(53.12%),联合用药30例(46.88%);治疗后血压达标23例(36.36%),以血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂加钙离子拮抗剂联合治疗效果为优,达标率57.14%。结论新疆地区高血压合并糖尿病患者的降压治疗以钙离子拮抗剂及血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂为主,血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂结合钙离子拮抗剂的治疗方案具有较高的降压达标率。     

Labetalol: potent antihypertensive agent that blocks both alpha- and beta-adrenergic receptors.

Labetalol was administered as the sole antihypertensive agent to 20 ambulatory patients with mild to moderate hypertension. The mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures (+/- standard error of the mean) with the patients sitting fell significantly (P < 0.001), from 145.5 +/- 3.2 and 103.7 +/- 1.6 mm Hg respectively at the start of labetalol therapy (after a period free of antihypertensive medication) to 125.7 +/- 2.0 and 87.2 +/- 1.1 mm Hg by the end of the trial. The diastolic blood pressure was well controlled (90 mm Hg or less) with labetalol therapy in 90% of the patients. The medication was well tolerated, and no orthostatic fall in the diastolic blood pressure was observed. Pharmacologically labetalol most closely resembles a combination of a nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker like propranolol and a postsynaptic alpha-adrenergic blocker like prazosin.     

苯磺酸左旋氨氯地平治疗老年单纯收缩期高血压的临床观察

目的利用动态血压监测观察老年单纯收缩期高血压（ISH）患者在不同时间服左旋氨氯地平降压治疗疗效,探讨其临床意义。方法选未服用降压药物或停用其他降压药物治疗7天以上的86例老年单纯收缩期高血压（ISH）患者,随机分为早上服药组（n=42例）和晚上服药组（n=44例）,口服苯磺酸左旋氨氯地平2．5mg／d,每日观察诊室血压。所有患者药物治疗前后行动态血压监测,共治疗12周。结果经左旋氨氯地平治疗后2组患者诊室血压明显降低（P〈O．05）,且下降程度相近,无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。动态血压显示2组治疗后均能降低24h血压,降压程度相近,无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。早上服药组白天血压达标（SBP〈135mmHg）者占46．2％,夜间血压达标（SBP〈125mmHg）者占31．7％。晚上服药组白天血压这标（SBP〈135mmHg）者占42．5％,夜间血压达标（SBP〈125mmHg）者占51．3％。结论左旋氨氯地平对老年单纯收缩期高血压（ISH）患者有较好的降压效果,特别是对夜间血压升高非杓型高血压患者在晚上服药可以提高夜间血压达标率,更好纠正血压昼夜节律异常,以减少高血压患者心、脑、肾等靶器官损害。     

The correlation of office blood pressure and 24-hour ambulatory measurements in hypertensive patients - comparison between non-pharmacological treatment and antihypertensive medication

Blood pressure control in many hypertensive patients remains imperfect, also because routine office blood pressure can only give limited information about diurnal variations and nocturnal dipping. It was the aim of our evaluation to study the efficacy of antihypertensive therapy and the correlation between repeated office blood pressure values and 24-hour ambulatory measurements in hypertensive outdoor patients treated by life-style modification and antihypertensive medication. Clinical data and blood pressure values in 343 outdoor patients who were admitted to the medical centre for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in hypertension were evaluated. Database was created from 1991 to 1998. The study population (mean age 59.5 +/- 11.6 years) comprised 153 men and 190 women, 141 (41%) were treated by life-style modification, 202 (59%) received antihypertensive medication. 57 patients showed symptoms of a metabolic syndrome, 62 suffered from manifest diabetes mellitus type 2. - Repeated office blood pressure measurements showed a significant positive correlation to the systolic and diastolic values obtained by 24-hour blood controls. While diastolic night minima revealed a positive correlation to office measurements (R = 0. 211; P <0.05), systolic night minima showed no correlation to office pressure control. In the whole study population and in subgroups (metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus) patients under antihypertensive medication still revealed significantly higher mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure values (140.5 +/- 16.9 mm Hg) than patients treated by life-style modification (133.0 +/- 14.4 mm Hg; P <0.001). Diastolic day- and night-time difference (dipping) was less pronounced in patients with antihypertensive medication. For appropriate antihypertensive therapy 24-hour blood pressure measurements are thus of advantage to repeated office controls especially to optimize medication for high systolic blood pressure values and adapt therapy to the nocturnal decrease of blood pressure values (dipping).     

高血压合并冠心病的老年患者运用硝苯地平控释片联合贝那利治疗效果的观察

目的:探究老年高血压合并冠心病患者在硝苯地平控释片和贝那普利联合治疗下的效果及安全性.方法:选取在我门诊接受治疗的79例高血压合并冠心病的老年患者,并随机分为观察组和对照组,对照组40例患者单纯口服硝苯地平控释片降压治疗,观察组39例患者在口服硝苯地平控释片基础上联合服用贝那普利进行降压治疗.比较治疗前后两组患者的收缩压与舒张压的变化情况;对比两组患者的治疗效果和药物不良反应发生情况.结果:两组患者治疗后的收缩压与舒张压均较治疗前下降显著,同时治疗后观察组的收缩压与舒张压低于对照组水平,观察组患者总有效率为92.31%;对照组患者总有效率为75.00%,两组具有统计学差异;两组患者不良反应发生率无统计学差异.结论:硝苯地平控释片联合贝那普利降压治疗,对老年高血压合并冠心病患者的血压降压效果显著,且能够有效地控制在安全可靠地范围内,提高了临床治疗的总有效率,不良反应少,值得临床上参考和推广.     

倍博特治疗高血压的疗效观察

目的:观察单一降压药治疗不能达标的高血压患者换用缬沙坦氨氯地平(倍博特)的疗效。方法:入选62例单一降压药未达标的患者,比较单一降压药未达标的患者与接受缬沙坦80mg/氨氯地平5mg单片方法制剂(倍博特)治疗4周以及8周以后患者的收缩压和舒张压的变化。结果:应用缬沙坦氨氯地平(倍博特)的患者能使只服单一降压药患者血压明显下降。结论:缬沙坦氨氯地平(倍博特)能显著提高高血压的血压达标率及治疗有效率。观察单一降压药治疗不能达标的高血压患者换用缬沙坦氨氯地平(倍博特)的疗效。方法:入选62例单一降压药未达标的患者,比较单一降压药未达标的患者与接受缬沙坦80mg/氨氯地平5mg单片方法制剂(倍博特)治疗4周以及8周以后患者的收缩压和舒张压的变化。结果:应用缬沙坦氨氯地平(倍博特)的患者能使只服单一降压药患者血压明显下降。结论:缬沙坦氨氯地平(倍博特)能显著提高高血压的血压达标率及治疗有效率。     

An assessment of diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension. Application of factorial trial design to a multicenter clinical trial of combination therapy

This multicenter, factorial-design trial assessed the safety and additive antihypertensive efficacy of a slow-release (SR) formulation of diltiazem hydrochloride given alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide for treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. After a 4- to 6-week placebo run-in period, 297 qualifying patients were randomized to receive placebo, 1 of 4 doses of diltiazem SR monotherapy, 1 of 3 doses of hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy, or 1 of 12 possible combinations of diltiazem SR and hydrochlorothiazide for 6 weeks. A dose-related reduction in blood pressure was demonstrated for each drug as monotherapy and for the two drugs in combination. Absolute blood pressures of patients who received combination therapy were lower by an overall mean of 3.0 mm Hg diastolic and 8.0 mm Hg systolic vs diltiazem SR used alone and 3.5 mm Hg diastolic and 4.0 mm Hg systolic vs hydrochlorothiazide used alone. At the largest doses used, 50% of patients achieved goal blood pressure while taking hydrochlorothiazide, 57% while taking diltiazem SR, and 75% while taking combination therapy. Combination therapy was well tolerated. This trial clearly demonstrates that diltiazem SR and hydrochlorothiazide have additive antihypertensive effects.     

太冲穴穴位埋线配合降压药治疗高血压病的疗效观察及护理

目的：太冲穴穴位埋线配合降压药治疗高血压病的疗效。方法：随机将124例患者分为观察及对照组各一半。对照组口服苯磺酸氨氯地平片;观察组在降压药治疗基础上,在太冲穴等穴位同时进行埋线,比较2组治疗前后动态血压情况、中医证候积分及疗效。结果：观察组与对照组均能有效降低24h平均收缩压、24h平均舒张压。2组证候疗效经Ridit分析,治疗组总有效率高于对照组。结论：太冲穴穴位埋线配合降压药治疗高血压病虽然效果与西医一致,但对各项临床不适症状能减轻或去除,并适时提供中医护理,从而提高患者的生活质量。     

降压药物对高血压性脑出血患者围术期血流动力学的影响

目的探讨降压药物对高血压性脑出血患者围术期血流动力学的影响。方法选取我院2009年1月～2011年7月收治的高血压性脑出血患者78例,随机分为两组,采用乌拉地尔治疗的39例患者为对照组,采用尼莫地平治疗的39例患者为观察组,比较两组患者围术期血流动力学的变化情况。结果泵药后,对照组心率略有升高,收缩压和舒张压均明显降低;观察组心率先升高后明显降低,收缩压和舒张压均明显降低;观察组心率、收缩压、舒张压均明显低于对照组。术中,对照组心率略有降低,收缩压和舒张压均明显降低;观察组心率略有升高,收缩压和舒张压均明显降低;观察组收缩压、舒张压均明显低于对照组。术后72 h,观察组平均血流量、平均血流速度均明显高于对照组,观察组外周阻力、临界压力均明显低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论尼莫地平用于高血压性脑出血患者的降压治疗,可以明显增加患者的脑血流量,并降低患者的脑血管阻力,还能有效控制患者术后的血压状况,临床疗效显著,值得临床推广使用。     

Labetalol in the treatment of hypertensive renal patients.

The efficacy of labetalol in lowering blood pressure was assessed in 18 patients with chronic renal failure and hypertension. Before the start of labetalol therapy, all patients were receiving combined antihypertensive therapy, the most common being a beta-blocker and hydrallazine. Over the period of about four weeks labetalol was substituted for the prior therapy. 51Cr edetic acid (EDTA) estimations of glomerular filtration rate were performed before labetalol therapy, and then again after one and six months. Before the therapy with labetalol, 12 of the 18 patients had supine diastolic blood pressures of 100 mm Hg or more. At six months, 14 patients remained in the trial and, of these, only four had a supine diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more. In the supine position there was a significant reduction of systolic, but not of diastolic, blood pressure. However, in the erect position there was a significant reduction both in systolic and in diastolic blood presure. Pulse rate did not vary significantly. Few side effects were encountered, transient postural dizziness being the most common side effect. Labetalol seems to be an effective substitute for the beta-blocker plus hydrallazine therapy. However, it is not as potent as minoxidil.     

Blood pressure profile in two adult male populations.

Causal blood pressure measurements were recorded in two groups of men aged 40 to 64 years; of the 7024 men in metropolitan Saint John, NB, and the 4044 men in seven suburbs of Quebec who were asked, 5840 (83.1%) and 3097 (76.6%) respectively agreed to participate. Of the Saint John group 9.0% were taking antihypertensive drugs, as compared with only 3.3% of the Quebec group (p less than 0.0001). Among the treated subjects 33% in Saint John and 53% in Quebec still had a diastolic pressure greater than 95 mm Hg (p less than 0.01). Among the participants not taking antihypertensive drugs the systolic blood pressure increased with age, but the diastolic blood pressure increased only slightly up to 55 years of age and then decreased. On average the subjects in Saint John who were not being treated had a systolic pressure 6.2 mm Hg lower and a diastolic blood pressure 3.6 mm Hg lower than their Quebec counterparts (p less than 0.0001). This difference was observed in all the age groups and was not the result of the treatment of a greater proportion of the Saint John cohort. Despite the higher blood pressures and the smaller number receiving adequate treatment in the Quebec group, the rate of death due to coronary artery disease was 10% lower than that in the Saint John group. A bias in the data from Quebec may have influenced the magnitude of the differences between the two samples, but if present it should have underestimated the blood pressures in the Quebec group and therefore not have changed the outcome.