成人臂围调查及袖带臂围匹配对血压测值的影响

目的 调查南昌市一个社区人群臂围,并观察袖带臂围匹配与否对袖带法血压测值的影响.方法 由两位经过专门培训的医务人员,用12 cm×22 cm袖带测量25～90岁社区居民2041名血压、右上臂的臂围、身高、体质量、体质量指数(BMI).按年龄分为≤35岁组(≤35)、36～45岁组(35～)、46～55岁组(45～)、56～65岁组(55～)、＞65岁组(＞65).208名冠脉造影患者同步测量主动脉根部(直接)和袖带法肱动脉(间接)血压,计算两者的差值(直-间血压差).结果 1)该社区成人臂围为17～37 cm 2)袖带臂围不匹配(＞26 cm)组的收缩压和舒张压测值分别比匹配(≤26 cm)组高6 mm Hg和4 mm Hg;不匹配组的直-间收缩压差比匹配组小2.7 mm Hg.结论 1)小号袖带对49.0%的南昌地区人群过小;2)使用小号袖带可能高估臂围＞26 cm人群的收缩压.     

高血压病患者动态血压参数与左室肥厚及颈动脉内-中膜厚度的关系

目的探讨高血压病患者动态血压参数对左室肥厚及颈动脉内-中膜厚度检测的意义.方法将初诊的高血压病患者147例经超声心动图和颈动脉超声检查分为左室肥厚组(n=45例)和非左室肥厚组(n=102例),颈动脉内-中膜增厚组(n=52例)和非内-中膜增厚组(n=95例),经询问病史、体检、测定动态血压参数,血脂、血糖等生化指标进行比较.结果 (1)左室肥厚组与非左室肥厚组的临床指标比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).(2)左室肥厚组与非左室肥厚组的动态血压参数比较分别为24 h平均收缩压(140.7±14.1)比(128.3±12.3)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),24 h平均舒张压(86.4±8.9)比(81.6±9.3)mm Hg,白昼平均收缩压(142.8±13.9)比(130.9±11.1)mm Hg,白昼平均舒张压(86.9±8.8)比(83.4±9.0)mm Hg,夜间平均收缩压(129.0±13.2)比(114.6±11.4)mm Hg,夜间平均舒张压(77.2±9.4)比(67.5±8.1)mm Hg,24 h脉压(54.2±10.2)比(46.9±9.6) mm Hg,白昼脉压(55.9±10.5)比(47.5±9.1)mm Hg,夜间脉压(51.8±10.7)比(47.1±8.7)mm Hg,24 h收缩压变异系数(8.4±2.0)比(7.2±1.9),24 h舒张压变异系数(9.5±2.2)比(8.0±2.1),动态血压非勺型昼夜节律55.6%比25.5%,其差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).(3)颈动脉内-中膜增厚组与非内-中膜增厚组的上述临床指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),与动态血压参数比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论高血压病动态血压参数异常者左室肥厚及颈动脉内-中膜增厚的发生率增多.     

老年男性原发性高血压患者动态血压及血压变异性与踝臂指数的关系探讨

目的评价老年男性原发性高血压患者动态血压及血压变异性(BPV)与踝臂指数(ABI)的关系。方法入选老年男性原发性高血压患者160例,按照ABI分为正常ABI组(ABI>0.90)104例和低ABI组(ABI≤0.90)56例,比较并分析其24 h动态血压参数和BPV参数。结果低ABI组较正常ABI组24 h平均脉压[(62.4±13.8)mm Hg比(53.0±13.0)mm Hg]、日间平均脉压[(67.3±17.0)mm Hg比(55.4±20.0)mm Hg]和夜间平均脉压[(63.0±16.0)mm Hg比(52.9±13.6)mm Hg]均高(P<0.01),同时夜间收缩压最大值[(146.5±17.4)mm Hg比(135.5±17.1)mm Hg]、夜间收缩压标准差[(12.4±4.0)mm Hg比(10.1±4.2)mm Hg]均大(P<0.05)。结论老年男性原发性高血压患者夜间收缩压最大值、夜间收缩压标准差、日间平均脉压、夜间平均脉压和24 h平均脉压升高可能是低ABI的危险因素。     

北京城乡老年人高血压与抑郁的关系

目的分析北京市城乡老年人血压与应用抑郁量表(CES-D)检测出的抑郁症状的关系。方法于2000年对一个流行病学队列研究人群2 656例老年人进行血压测量及CES-D的检查,同时进行人口学因素及慢性病情况的调查。结果2 656例老人平均收缩压为(141.16±23.88)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),平均舒张压为(80.28±12.15)mm Hg。CES-D平均得分(6.89±9.05)分。其中有抑郁症状者362例(13.6%)。收缩压≥160 mm Hg者抑郁发生率为16.9%,舒张压≥90 mm Hg者抑郁发生率为18.4%,分别显著高于收缩压<160 mm Hg者(12.8%)和舒张压<90 mm Hg者(12.2%),分层分析显示,女性、年龄<75岁、不吸烟的老人收缩压及舒张压增高者抑郁症状出现的比例增大;居住于城市、非文盲、已知有高血压史、高血压史10年以上的老人收缩压增高更易出现抑郁症状;而居住于农村、文盲、高血压史小于10年的老人舒张压增高更易出现抑郁症状。多元logistic回归分析显示,舒张压增高、慢性病史、女性、文盲、农村老人易患抑郁。结论老年人血压增高与抑郁相关。     

组织多普勒成像评价血压昼夜节律变异对左心室舒张功能的影响

目的探讨血压昼夜节律变异对左心室舒张功能的影响。方法31例非杓型高血压患者(非杓型组)和31例年龄、性别相匹配的杓型高血压患者(杓型组)入选。两组患者均行24 h动态血压监测和组织多普勒成像(DTI)检查。结果两组日间平均收缩压和平均舒张压无显著性差异,非杓型组的夜间平均收缩压和平均舒张压均显著高于杓型组[(145.1±34.5)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)vs(127.9±18.1)mm Hg,(94.2±38.1)mm Hgvs(78.5±18.2)mm Hg,P<0.05]。心脏超声检查显示两组在心腔内径、室壁厚度和左心室射血分数等参数无显著性差异,DTI结果显示非杓型组的平均组织舒张早期速度(MEa)、MEa/平均组织舒张晚期速度(MAa)显著低于杓型组[(5.9±2.1)cm/svs(7.8±3.1)cm/s,(0.68±0.56)cm/svs(0.95±0.39)cm/s,P<0.05和P<0.01)];非杓型组的MAa较杓型组明显升高[(9.5±2.8)cm/svs(8.6±1.7)cm/s,P<0.01]。结论血压昼夜节律变异可加重左心室舒张功能受损。对于存在血压昼夜节律变异的高血压患者应尽早诊断,积极治疗和加强随访。     

假性高血压

假性高血压(pseudohypertension，PHT)是指常规袖带测压法(袖带测压)所测的血压值高于通过动脉穿刺而直接测得的血压值(直接测压)，但相差多少才能诊断PHT，目前尚无定论。多数学者认为如果袖带测压所测收缩压或(和)舒张压分别高于直接测压所测收缩压或(和)舒张压10mmHg即可诊断为PHT。PHT应包括3种不同的情况：第1种情况为直接测压完全正常，但袖带测压高于正常(单纯PHT)。     

HEM-6000手腕式血压计的可靠性

目的采用美国医疗器械检测协会(AAMI)标准,对HEM-6000手腕式血压计的血压测量精确度进行临床验证研究。方法入选对象为18岁以上成年人,共91人。腕部测压结果与听诊法比较。每位受试者用2种方法同时各进行3次坐位血压测量,对91人的273对血压测量值用以下2种方法进行统计分析:(1)先计算出2种测压方法得到的血压测量值误差,再求得误差的平均值和标准偏差。(2)先计算出每位受试者用2种测压方法得到的血压平均值的差值,再求得该差值的平均值和标准偏差。结果根据方法1得到的收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)的测量误差分别为(0.5±7.1)mm Hg和(-1.6±6.1)mm Hg;根据方法2得到的结果分别(0.5±6.1)mm Hg和(-1.6±5.3)mm Hg。血压值的水平及手腕周长对测量误差无影响。结论HEM-6000手腕式血压计通过AAMI检验标准,可推荐患者用于家庭自我测压。     

腕表式动态中心动脉压记录仪在肾功能衰竭高血压患者中的应用研究

目的探讨腕表式动态中心动脉压记录仪在肾功能衰竭高血压患者中的准确性和应用价值。方法连续入选80例肾功能衰竭高血压患者,分别采用腕表式动态中心动脉压记录仪和袖带式动态血压监测仪同时监测患者24 h血压,比较两种血压监测仪24 h平均收缩压和舒张压、日间平均收缩压和舒张压、夜间平均收缩压和舒张压情况。并观察两种血压监测仪检测指标的相关性。结果袖带式动态血压监测仪和腕表式动态中心动脉压记录仪24 h平均收缩压分别为:(138.2±12.5)mm Hg和(138.3±14.5)mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133k Pa);24 h平均舒张压分别为:(90.3±15.4)mm Hg和(89.2±16.7)mm Hg;日间平均收缩压分别为:(143.2±14.6)mm Hg和(140.2±12.3)mm Hg;夜间平均收缩压分别为:(123.3±11.5)mm Hg和(128.2±14.5)mm Hg;日间平均舒张压分别为:(88.2±14.4)mm Hg和(88.2±13.7)mm Hg;夜间平均舒张压分别为:(89.3±17.4)mm Hg和(90.3±11.7)mm Hg;两种检测方法间均无统计学差异(P均0.05)。两种动态血压监测方式指标间均高度相关(r均0.9,P均0.05)。结论腕表式动态中心动脉压记录仪和袖带式动态血压监测仪检测结果高度一致,可在临床进一步推广应用。     

胸降主动脉夹层腔内隔绝术患者围术期有创及袖带血压监测的比较

目的比较胸降主动脉夹层腔内隔绝术患者围术期有创及袖带血压监测的差异及其对药物治疗的影响。方法 2013年1月至2014年12月沈阳军区总医院心内科收治的129例胸降主动脉夹层行腔内隔绝术的患者,依据时间分为袖带血压监测组67例,有创动脉血压监测组62例。观察两组血压变化、降压药物使用情况及围术期临床效果。结果有创血压监测组监测时间为(3±1)d,监测结束后均顺利拔管,无并发症发生。有创血压监测组桡动脉最高有创动脉血压较即刻同侧袖带上臂血压高(15±7)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)。有创血压组最高收缩压高于袖带上臂血压监测组,差异有统计学意义[(190±18)mm Hg vs.(175±22)mm Hg,P0.01];有创血压监测组收缩压下降值高于袖带血压监测组,差异有统计学意义[(43±11)mm Hg vs.(32±8)mm Hg,P0.01]。与袖带监测组相比,有创血压监测组静脉使用降压药比例增高,差异有统计学意义(77.4% vs.61.2%,P0.001)。有创动脉血压监测组的血压达标率高于袖带血压监测组,差异有统计学意义(95.2% vs.82.1%,P=0.02)。两组间的最高心率,心率下降值及心率达标率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组围术期夹层破裂病死率比较,差异无统计学意义(1.5%眠0,P=0.33)。两组围术期均无脑血管意外发生,无截瘫及心肌缺血及心性死亡发生。结论袖带血压监测已经达到目标值,但是事实上患者仍然可能处于高血压状态,胸降主动脉夹层腔内隔绝术患者积极使用有创动脉血压监测对血压监测具有重要意义。     

臂围调查与血压计袖带大小的合理选择

目的调查北京地区成人高血压病患者右上臂臂围的数值,为临床工作中合理选择血压测量袖带提供一定的指导。方法用横断面研究,连续入选了424名成人高血压病患者(其中男性占61.6%),经右上臂的中点测量所有病例的臂围。根据臂围的数值将患者首先分为3组:1组臂围在22~26cm之间(小个成人),2组臂围在27~34cm(标准成人),3组臂围>34cm(大个成人)。再将患者分为两组:A组臂围<32cm,B组臂围≥32cm。结果在全部入选高血压病患者中,臂围均值为(29.6±2.6)cm。82.8%的患者右臂臂围在27~34cm之间,只有8.96%的患者臂围在22~26cm之间。无论男性和女性患者,其臂围和体质量指数(BMI)与腰围(WC)都呈显著相关性(BMI:r=0.810,WC:r=0.725,P均<0.01)。与A组比较,B组患者的血清肌酐、尿酸和三酰甘油都显著高于A组,而高密度脂蛋白胆固醇却显著低于A组。结论在当前临床实践中,需尽早采用气囊尺寸为13cm×30cm的袖带进行血压测量。另外,臂围增加可能与本地区高血压病患者代谢指标的紊乱相关。     

Can an electronic device with a single cuff be accurate in a wide range of arm size? Validation of the Visomat Comfort 20/40 device for home blood pressure monitoring

An appropriate cuff according to the individual's arm circumference is recommended with all blood pressure (BP) monitors. An electronic device for home monitoring has been developed (Visomat Comfort 20/40) that estimates the individual's arm circumference by measuring the cuff filing volume and makes an adjustment of measured BP taking into account the estimated arm circumference. Thus the manufacturer recommends the use of a single cuff for arm circumference 23-43 cm. The device accuracy was assessed using the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol. Simultaneous BP measurements were obtained in 33 adults by two observers (connected mercury sphygmomanometers) four times, sequentially with three measurements taken using the tested device. Absolute device-observer BP differences were classified into < or =5, < or =10 and < or =15 mm Hg zones. For each participant the number of measurements with a difference < or =5 mm Hg was calculated. The device produced 60/89/97 measurements within 5/10/15 mm Hg respectively for systolic BP, and 72/97/98 for diastolic. Twenty-three subjects had at least two of their systolic BP differences < or =5 mm Hg and three had no differences < or =5 mm Hg (for diastolic 27 and 1, respectively). Mean device-observer BP difference (systolic/diastolic) was 3.7 +/- 5.6/-1.5 +/- 4.7 mm Hg (4.7 +/- 4.9/ - 1.7 +/- 4.3 in arm circumference 23-29 cm [39 readings] and 3.1 +/- 5.9/-1.4 +/- 5.0 in arm 30-34 cm [60 readings], P=NS). In conclusion, the device fulfils the International Protocol requirements and can be recommended for clinical use. Interestingly, the device was accurate using a single cuff in a wide range of arm circumference (23-34 cm). This study provides no information about the device accuracy in larger arms.     

Differences in blood pressure values by simultaneous auscultation of Korotkoff sounds inside the cuff and in the antecubital fossa.

To elucidate whether auscultation of the Korotkoff sounds inside the cuff and in the antecubital fossa leads to different blood pressure (BP) values we measured BP at both sites simultaneously with identical flat stethoscopes in a same-arm test design (part A) in 64 normotensive (N: 32 men, 32 women; mean age: 38.7 +/- 15.1 years) and 67 hypertensive subjects (H: 36 men, 31 women; mean age: 44.6 +/- 12.9 years), and additionally in a same- and opposite-arm test design (part B) in 20 normotensive young women. While in part A systolic BP measured inside the cuff was only slightly higher (N: +1. 6 +/- 3.2 mm Hg; H: +1.0 +/- 1.4 mm Hg), diastolic BP was considerably lower (N: -10.6 +/- 5.6 mm Hg; H: -8.4 +/- 4.9 mm Hg). This result was corroborated by part B with differences in systolic/diastolic BP of +0.8 +/- 1.0/-8.5 +/- 2.2 mm Hg in the same-arm test and +0.4 +/- 4.8/-10.6 +/- 5.2 mm Hg in the opposite-arm test. Subject's age was the main variable determining differences in diastolic BP with significantly higher differences in younger than in older subjects, indicating that the elastic properties of arteries may be responsible for these differences. Our results demonstrate that a modification in the auscultatory technique of BP measurement produces significantly different diastolic BP values, the magnitude of which is important for our conceptions of threshold and target values in diagnosing and treating hypertension.     

The unilateral measurement of blood pressure may mask the diagnosis or delay the effective treatment of hypertension

Several studies have indicated the presence of significant interarm blood pressure (BP) differences; this could result in misclassification of BP status. Nevertheless, the findings of these studies were not consistent. This prospective, observational study investigated the presence and magnitude of interarm BP differences and determined the influence of age, gender, arm circumference, smoking, being hypertensive or diabetic, or having a previous history of cardiovascular disease in these differences. The study included 384 subjects, who were patients, ward visitors, and members of the nursing staff of this Department. BP measurements were recorded simultaneously in both arms by using 2 validated, fully automated oscillometric electronic devices. There were significant differences between the right arm and left arm systolic BP (p < 0.0005), between right arm and left arm diastolic BP (p < 0.05), and between right arm and left arm pulse pressure (p = 0.006). The mean interarm differences in systolic and diastolic BP measurements were 1.2 +/-5.0 mm Hg and 0.4 +/-4.2 mm Hg, respectively. There were 13 subjects (3.4%) and 4 subjects (1.04%) with an interarm systolic and diastolic BP difference of > 10 mm Hg, respectively, and a single patient with both interarm systolic and diastolic BP differences of > 10 mm Hg (0.26%). None of the studied demographic or clinical characteristics was a significant predictor of interarm systolic and diastolic BP differences. The authors conclude that significant interarm systolic and diastolic BP differences are frequently present. Therefore, the unilateral measurement of BP may mask the diagnosis or delay the effective treatment of hypertension. It is thus recommended that BP should be simultaneously measured in both arms at the initial consultation and the higher of the 2 readings should be used to guide further management decisions.     

Management of hypertension in patients with diabetes using an amlodipine-, olmesartan medoxomil-, and hydrochlorothiazide-based titration regimen

The safety and efficacy of an amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based titration regimen was assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, 207 patients received amlodipine 5 mg and were uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 5/20, 5/40, and 10/40 mg and then amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 and 25 mg in a step-wise manner at 3-week intervals if the seated blood pressure (BP) remained ≥120/70 mm Hg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP after 12 weeks of treatment. The baseline mean ± SD seated cuff systolic/diastolic BP was 158.8 ± 13.1/89.1 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the mean ± SD 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was 144.4 ± 11.7/81.6 ± 9.8 mm Hg. At week 12, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was -19.9 ± 0.8/-11.2 ± 0.5 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), and 70% of patients had achieved a 24-hour ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mm Hg. At the end of 18 weeks of active treatment in patients uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM seated BP was -28.0 ± 1.5/-13.7 ± 1.0 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), with 62% of patients reaching the guideline-recommended seated BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 19.3% of patients. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (6%), dizziness (3%), and hypotension (2%). In conclusion, this amlodipine/OM-based titration regimen was well tolerated and effectively lowered BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.     

缬沙坦联合氨氯地平或氢氯噻嗪对老年高血压患者血压变异性的影响

目的 比较缬沙坦联合氨氯地平或氢氯噻嗪对老年高血压患者血压变异性及一氧化氮、内皮素的影响.方法选取61例2、3级老年高血压患者,随机分为两组,分别给予缬沙坦+氨氯地平或缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪行降压治疗,观察入选时、治疗第8周和第16周各种相关指示的变化.人选时检测血脂、空腹血糖、血尿酸,试验各个阶段监测24 h动态血压,检测血浆一氧化氮、内皮素水平.结果在患者入选时、治疗第8周和第16周三个时间点,缬沙坦+氨氯地平组和缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪组24 h血压及白昼血压比较差异无统计学意义.治疗第16周,缬沙坦+氨氯地平组晨峰收缩压较缬沙坦+氢氯嚷嗪组明显降低[(22.6±8.8)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)比(26.3±13.7)mm Hg,P＜0.05];缬沙坦+氨氯地平组及缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪组24 h收缩压变异性(SBPV)进行性降低[缬沙坦+氨氯地平组:(12.5±2.8)mm Hg比(10.2 ±2.2)mm Hg比(8.8±1.6)mm Hg,P＜0.01;缬沙坦±氢氯噻嗪组:(12.5±2.5)mmHg比(10.7±2.2)mm Hg比(9.6±2.0)mmHg,P＜0.01],缬沙坦+氨氯地平组及缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪组白昼SBPV明显降低[缬沙坦+氨氯地平组:(12.2±3.0)mm Hg比(10.1±2.3)mm Hg比(8.4±1.9)mm Hg,P＜0.01;缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪组:(11.8±2.7)mm Hg比(10.4±1.9)mm Hg比(9.6±2.2)mm Hg,P＜0.01],缬沙坦+氨氯地平组24 h舒张压变异性(DBPV)显著降低[(15.5±3.4)mm Hg比(13.0±3.5)mm Hg比(12.3±2.5)mm Hg,P＜0.01],缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪组24 h DBPV无显著性变化;缬沙坦+氨氯地平组第16周白昼SBPV低于缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪组[(8.4±1.9)mm Hg比(9.6 ±2.2)mm Hg,p＜0.05],缬沙坦+氨氯地平第8周、第16周的24 h DBPV、白昼DBPV低于缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪组(P ＜0.01～0.05);缬沙坦+氨氯地平组一氧化氮进行性升高[(27.3±13.6)μmol/L比(47.2±16.3)μmol/L比(69.5±18.9)μmol/L,P＜0.01]、内皮素进行性降低[(45.3±8.0)ng/L比(37.4±3.9)ng/L比(34.2±4.4)ng/L,P＜0.01];缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪组一氧化氮进行性升高[(33.5±13.9)μmol/L 比(49.7±21.9)μmol/L比(66.7 ±24.7)μmol/L,P＜0.01]、内皮素显著降低[(46.6±10.4)ng/L比(37.0±5.4)ng/L比(36.1±8.2)ng/L,P＜0.01].治疗第8周,缬沙坦+氨氯地平组收缩压变异性的降幅与一氧化氮的升幅有相关性(r =0.401,P=0.025).结论缬沙坦联合氨氯地平或氢氯噻嗪均能降低老年高血压患者血压变异性、改善血管内皮功能,缬沙坦联合氨氯地平可能更适合于老年高血压患者.     

Can validated wrist devices with position sensors replace arm devices for self-home blood pressure monitoring? A randomized crossover trial using ambulatory monitoring as reference

BACKGROUND: Electronic devices that measure blood pressure (BP) at the arm level are regarded as more accurate than wrist devices and are preferred for home BP (HBP) monitoring. Recently, wrist devices with position sensors have been successfully validated using established protocols. This study assessed whether HBP values measured with validated wrist devices are sufficiently reliable to be used for making patient-related decisions in clinical practice. METHODS: This randomized crossover study compared HBP measurements taken using validated wrist devices (wrist-HBP, Omron R7 with position sensor) with those taken using arm devices (arm-HBP, Omron 705IT), and also with measurements of awake ambulatory BP (ABP, SpaceLabs), in 79 subjects (36 men and 43 women) with hypertension. The mean age of the study population was 56.7 +/- 11.8 years, and 33 of the subjects were not under treatment for hypertension. RESULTS: The average arm-HBP was higher than the average wrist-HBP (mean difference, systolic 5.2 +/- 9.1 mm Hg, P < 0.001, and diastolic 2.2 +/- 6.7, P < 0.01). Twenty-seven subjects (34%) had a > or =10 mm Hg difference between systolic wrist-HBP and arm-HBP and twelve subjects (15%) showed similar levels of disparity in diastolic HBP readings. Strong correlations were found between arm-HBP and wrist-HBP (r 0.74/0.74, systolic/diastolic, P < 0.0001). However, ABP was more strongly correlated with arm-HBP (r 0.73/0.76) than with wrist-HBP (0.55/0.69). The wrist-arm HBP difference was associated with systolic ABP (r 0.34) and pulse pressure (r 0.29), but not with diastolic ABP, sex, age, arm circumference, and wrist circumference. CONCLUSIONS: There might be important differences in HBP measured using validated wrist devices with position sensor vs. arm devices, and these could impact decisions relating to the patient in clinical practice.Measurements taken using arm devices are more closely related to ABP values than those recorded by wrist devices. More research is needed before recommending the widespread use of wrist monitors in clinical practice.American Journal of Hypertension doi:10.1038/ajh.2008.176American Journal of Hypertension (2008); 21, 7, 753-758. doi:10.1038/ajh.2008.176.     

经皮二尖瓣球囊扩张术治疗老年人二尖瓣狭窄的临床观察

目的 探讨经皮二尖瓣球囊扩张术(PBMV)治疗老年人二尖瓣狭窄的疗效、安全性及并发症的预防.方法 采用改良的房间隔定位法及运用跨二尖瓣技术对老年二尖瓣狭窄患者行逐步球囊扩张.手术前后分别记录即刻左心房压、肺动脉平均压、二尖瓣跨瓣压差及二尖瓣口面积,并进行手术后随访.结果 PBMV有效扩大了二尖瓣口面积,与术前比较,术后左心房压下降[分别为(25.3±6.7)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)与(16.4±5.8)mm Hg]、二尖瓣跨瓣压下降[分别为(17.6±6.7)mm Hg与(6.8±2.9)mm Hg]、肺动脉压下降[分别为(38.6±12.1)mm Hg与(29.2±9.8)mm Hg],二尖瓣口面积增加[分别为(1.05±0.22)cm2与(1.61±0.38)cm2],心功能明显改善,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05或P＜0.01).随访结果表明,PBMV疗效稳定.结论 PBMV操作技术的改进能明显改善老年患者二尖瓣狭窄症状,显著降低手术的并发症.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the improved percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty (PBMV) in elderly patients with mitral stenosis. Methods Elderly patients with severe mitral stenosis received an improved PBMV which included a modified way of atrial septal puncture and technique across the mitral valve. The left atrial pressrue (LAP), mean pulmonary pressure (MPA), mean gradient across the mitral value (MPG) and mitral valve area (MVA) were recorded and compared before and after the operation. Long term follow up were made. Results After operation, the LAP decreased [(25.3±6.7) mm Hg vs.(16.4±5.8) mm Hg,1 mm Hg=0.133 Kpa], MPG decreased [(17.6±6.7) mm Hg vs.(6.8±2.9) mm Hg], MPA decreased [(38.6±12.1) mm Hg vs. (29.2±9.8) mm Hg], MVA increased [(1.05±0.22)cm2 vs.(1.61±0.38)cm2] and the New York heart association heart function classification improved. The follow-up result showed that the effect of PBMV was constant. Conclusions Improved PBMV may be an effective and safe measure for patients with mitral stenosis.     

A simple technique for measuring arterial blood pressures in conscious human subjects.

A new technique for measuring blood pressure utilizes the subject's ability to sense the onset and cessation of the Korotkoff phenomenon within the artery itself. Of the readings made in this manner with a standard arm cuff 94% were found to agree within +/- 10 mm Hg with readings made with a stethoscope. And 91% of the blood pressures measured by this technique using an infant cuff on the thumb were found to agree within +/- 10 mm Hg with those measured by the same technique with a standard cuff at the brachial artery. Therefore a simple device was designed with which subjects can measure their own systolic and diastolic blood pressure by utilizing a combined syringe and cuff applied to the thumb. There was a mean systolic difference of 4.7 and a mean diastolic difference of 6.1 mm Hg between readings made on 40 subjects with the new instrument and those made with a mercury sphygmomanometer.     

Interarm blood pressure differences in the women's interagency HIV study

Hypertension has been reported in 8-32% of HIV-infected individuals. Large interarm blood pressure differences (IABPD) may cause misclassification of blood pressure (BP) status. The objectives of this study were to determine the magnitude and factors associated with IABPD in HIV-infected women and uninfected controls. Using automated devices, two BP recordings were measured and averaged from each arm in Brooklyn enrollees of the Women's Interagency HIV Study. Absolute IABPD was calculated for each patient. Among 335 subjects, 238 were HIV infected and 97 were uninfected. Mean systolic and diastolic IABPD were 6 +/- 5 mm Hg and 4 +/- 3 mm Hg, respectively. Twenty-six percent of subjects had systolic IABPD >10 mm Hg and 6% had systolic IABPD >20 mm Hg. Fifteen percent of subjects had diastolic IABPD >10 mm Hg. Interarm BP differences were not associated with HIV serostatus, CD4(+) cell count, and use of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Systolic IABPD >20 mm Hg was associated with obesity (ORadj 5.37, 95% CI 1.47, 19.65), and LDL cholesterol above 160 (ORadj 9.12, 95% CI 2.53, 32.88). Right arm BP measurement resulted in 10% of subjects with high/uncontrolled BP. Bilateral arm BP measurement increased the yield to 15% (p < 0.001). In conclusion, systolic and diastolic IABPD are common and appear to be of clinically important magnitude. Systolic IABPD are related to cardiovascular risk factors but not to HIV-related factors. Bilateral BP determination is important to detect and manage hypertension as well as for accurate cardiovascular risk assessment.     

Comparison of the Omron HEM-637 wrist monitor to the auscultation method with the wrist position sensor on or disabled

BACKGROUND: To determine whether the Omron HEM637 wrist model with the wrist positioning sensor turned on (Son) is more accurate relative to upper arm auscultation by trained professionals than when the sensor was manually turned off (Soff). METHODS: Forty-four subjects, at least 30 years old, had repeated, sequential dual-observer upper arm auscultatory measurements (5 to 6 each) and oscillometric Omron HEM637 wrist measurements (4 each). Nineteen subjects were assigned to the wrist sensor On group and 25 were assigned to the wrist sensor Off group. A total of 425 auscultatory and 164 wrist measurements were analyzed. RESULTS: The Omron HEM-637 measured the blood pressure (BP) with equal accuracy to the observers using the auscultatory technique (difference -1.37 +/- 8.51/3.47 +/- 8.07 mm Hg, P =.71/.14). The wrist sensor did improve the accuracy of the measurements compared to the subjects that had the sensor deactivated. The sensor On group (Son) measured the systolic BP (0.82 +/- 9.83 mm Hg) and diastolic BP (-0.72 +/- 9.07 mm Hg) statistically the same as by auscultation (P =.86 for systolic BP and P =.83 for diastolic BP). The sensor Off (Soff) group measured the SBP (-3.03 +/- 7.12 mm Hg) and diastolic BP (-5.56 +/- 6.68 mm Hg) statistically different than auscultation (P =.46 for systolic BP and P =.02 for diastolic BP). The higher (negative) measurement for both the systolic BP and diastolic BP suggests that the average position of the wrist was 1.75 inches (4.4 cm) below the heart level in this group with the sensor off. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the Omron HEM-637 monitor with a wrist sensor more accurately measured BP compared to the same model with the sensor turned off.