氯沙坦对高血压病人24小时血压的影响

目的　观察氯沙坦对高血压病人 2 4小时血压的影响 ,探讨其临床意义。方法　 2 0例Ⅰ Ⅱ级高血压病人 ,入院后停药 2周 ,服氯沙坦5 0mg ,qd ,疗程 12周 ,1个月后血压若未降至 140 / 90mmHg以下 ,可加大剂量到 10 0mg ,qd ,治疗前后复查 2 4小时动态血压。以二次给药间距终末时血压下降数除以给药间距中最大血压下降数值作为药物降压的谷 /峰比 (T∶P) ,以夜间血压均值与白昼血压均值比较时下降 10 %或大于 10mmHg者为夜间血压下降或”杓型者” ,反之为夜间血压不下降者或”非杓型者”。结果　发现 (1)氯沙坦能明显降低高血压病人的 2 4小时平均血压 (mmHg) (SBP :134± 14比 113± 8,DBP :89± 12比 71±5 ,P <0 0 1) ;有效率为 85 .0 % .(2 )氯沙坦降压的SBP和DBPT :P比率分别为 78.6 % (4 8%～ 93 .9% )和 76 .2 % (4 6 .4%～ 89.6 % ) .SBP ,DBP和MBP的平滑曲线指数分别是 1.2 3± 0 32 ,1.36± 0 41和 1.32± 0 38.(3)对夜间血压高于正常值 (12 0 / 80mmHg)的高血压患者 ,氯沙坦明显降低夜间血压(mmHg) (SBP :142 .6± 8.8降至 116 .3± 11.4,DBP :89.2±9.6降至 74.3± 6 .8,P <0 0 1) ,对夜间血压已属正常者 ,氯沙坦无进一步降压作用 (SBP :12 0 3± 3 .7比 116 .3± 6 .8;DBP :78.2± 6 .     

氯沙坦对高血压病人偶测血压及动态血压的影响

目的:观察氯沙坦对高血压病人偶测血压及24h动态血压的影响,探讨其临床意义。方法:24例Ⅰ～Ⅱ级高血压病人,入院后停药2周,服氯沙坦50mg,qd,疗程12周。1个月后血压若未降至140/9OmmHg以下,可加大剂量到100mg,qd。治疗前后复查24h动态血压。以两次给药间距终末时血压下降数除以给药间距中最大血压下降数值作为药物降压的谷/峰比(T:P),以夜间血压均值与白昼血压均值比较下降10％或大于10mmHg者为夜间血压下降或“杓型者”,反之为夜间血压不下降者或“非杓型者”。结果:发现(1)氯沙坦显著降低高血压病人的偶测平均血压(P<0.01);(2)氯沙坦能明显降低高血压病人的24h平均血压(P<0.01)。有效率为83.3％;(3)氯沙坦降压的SBP和DBP T:P比率分别为78.8％和76.5％。SBP、DBP和MBP的平滑曲线指数分别是1.24±0.33,1.37±0.42和1.32±0.37;(4)对夜间血压高于正常值(120/80mmHg)的高血压患者,氯沙坦明显降低夜间血压(P<0.01),对夜间血压已属正常者,氯沙坦无进一步降压作用(P>0.05)。(5)24hSBP、DBP下降幅度与治疗前SBP、DBP明显相关(r分别为0.812和0.794,P<0.01)。结论:氯沙坦是一种安全有效的降压药,其主要优点是24h平稳降压,谷峰比满意,夜间无过度降压的危险,晨间血压上升受到明显抑制,基础血压越高,降压效果越好。     

氯沙坦对高血压病人偶测血压及动态血压的影响

目的观察氯沙坦对高血压病人偶测血压及24h动态血压的影响,探讨其临床意义.方法24例Ⅰ～Ⅱ级高血压病人,入院后停药2周,服氯沙坦50mg,qd,疗程12周.1个月后血压若未降至140/90mmHg以下,可加大剂量到100mg,qd.治疗前后复查24h动态血压.以两次给药间距终末时血压下降数除以给药间距中最大血压下降数值作为药物降压的谷/峰比(TP),以夜间血压均值与白昼血压均值比较下降10%或大于10mmHg者为夜间血压下降或"杓型者",反之为夜间血压不下降者或"非杓型者".结果发现(1)氯沙坦显著降低高血压病人的偶测平均血压(P＜0.01);(2)氯沙坦能明显降低高血压病人的24h平均血压(P＜0.01).有效率为83.3%;(3)氯沙坦降压的SBP和DBP TP比率分别为78.8%和76.5%.SBP、DBP和MBP的平滑曲线指数分别是1.24±0.33,1.37±0.42和1.32±0.37;(4)对夜间血压高于正常值(120/80mmHg)的高血压患者,氯沙坦明显降低夜间血压(P＜0.01),对夜间血压已属正常者,氯沙坦无进一步降压作用(P＞0.05).(5)24hSBP、DBP下降幅度与治疗前SBP、DBP明显相关(r分别为0.812和0.794,P＜0.01).结论氯沙坦是一种安全有效的降压药,其主要优点是24h平稳降压,谷峰比满意,夜间无过度降压的危险,晨间血压上升受到明显抑制,基础血压越高,降压效果越好.     

动态血压监测在评价高血压靶器官损害中的预测价值

目的探讨动态血压监测(ABPM)在评价高血压靶器官损害中的预测价值。方法对120例原发性高血压(EH)患者(女42例,男78例)的24hABPM和偶测血压(CBP)与EH所致靶器官损害(心房颤动、室性心律失常、充血性心力衰竭、脑血管意外)的相关性进行比较。结果24h动态平均SBP和上述各项事件有明显的相关性,相关系数分别为0．3001,0．3114,0．3921,0．4222,P<0．01;24h动态平均DBP亦和上述各项事件有相关性,相关系数依次为0．2998,0．3095、0．2430,0．3005,P<0．01;CBP与EH所致靶器官损害无相关性。脑血管意外的发生与夜间平均SBP和DBP有更明显的相关性,相关系数分别为0．6005,0．4568,P<0．001。研究还发现动态血压中有"杓"型变化者比无"杓"型变化者的EH心脑血管并发症发病率明显降低。血压负荷>25％是心脑血管病发生的危险信号之一。结论了解EH患者的24h血压变化对预测EH并发症的发生和指导合理治疗有重要意义。注重夜间血压的降低是减少脑血管病发生的一有效措施。     

航海人员高血压24小时动态血压变化特征

目的探讨航海人员(包括水下和水面作业)中高血压患者24小时动态血压监测(ABPM)参数变化特征.方法选择偶测收缩压≥140 mmHg和或舒张压≥90 mmHg的37例航海人员中高血压患者行24 h ABPM, 并与94例血压正常的航海人员(<140/90 mmHg)对比观察.结果航海人员中高血压患者24 h平均SBP和DBP、白昼或夜间平均SBP和DBP,白昼或夜间SBP和DBP负荷值,均明显高于血压正常组;高血压患者夜间SBP和DBP均值下降>10%(>10 mmHg);水下作业组的高血压患者白昼或夜间SBP和DBP负荷值高于水上作业组.结论本组航海人员中高血压患者均显示杓型高血压,可能与轻、中度高血压(35/37)较多有关;水下作业组高血压患者负荷值升高明显,提示水下作业人员的工作环境与生活条件等受多种复杂因素影响,易产生增压反应有关.     

低剂量吲哒帕胺缓释片治疗原发性高血压的30小时动态血压评价

目的评价吲哒帕胺1.5 mg新型缓释片(SR I .D)的长效降压疗效及安全性.方法 24例轻中度原发性高血压患者,服SR I .D 1.5 mg前和8周后分别进行连续30小时的动态血压监测,并测定血钾及血尿酸,观察药物的安全性.结果服药后诊所血压总有效率54.2%.SBP/DBP由治疗前的(142.4±11.9/97.2±5.0)mmHg降至治疗后的(132.5±8.4/88.0±6.0)mmHg,心率无明显改变.前24小时ABPM血压由(130.3±9.1/86.3±6.3)mmHg降至(123.4±10.3/81.4±7.3)mmHg,延长段6小时ABPM血压由(136.9±9.7/90.7±6.0)mmHg降至(128.0±8.6/85.7±7.9)mmHg,两者均有显著意义.SBP和DBP的T/P比值分别为0.75和0.73.治疗后血钾由(4.6±0.56)mmol/L下降至(4.1±0.36)mmol/L(P<0.01),最低值为3.5 mmol/L(2例).血尿酸值由服药前的(333.8±73.0)mol/L变为(367.9±88.3)μmol/L,异常的例数由3例上升至7例,但尚无统计学差异.结论吲哒帕胺1.5 mg缓释片每日1次给药降压平稳而达30小时以上,不良反应少.     

动态血压评价替米沙坦、氯沙坦治疗轻、中度高血压的临床疗效

目的　比较选择性血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂替米沙坦、氯沙坦治疗轻、中度原发性高血压的疗效及安全性。方法　对 77例原发性高血压患者分成两组 ,分别予以替米沙坦 80mg,氯沙坦 5 0mg ,每日一次 ,6周后观察动态血压 (ABPM)评价降压效果。结果　替米沙坦和氯沙坦两组 2 4小时平均动态收缩压 (SBP)、舒张压 (DBP)均明显降低 ,替米沙坦 80mg的降压效果比氯沙坦 5 0mg更好 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,特别是在给药间期的最后 4～ 6小时 ,SBP/DBP替米沙坦降低了12 .3± 14 /7.2± 0 .9mmHg ,氯沙坦降低了 6.0± 1.6/3 .8± 0 .9mmHg(P <0 .0 5 )。结论　替米沙坦 80mg每日用药一次 ,可以保持正常的血压昼夜节律 ,提供 2 4小时血压控制的效果     

氯沙坦的降压疗效及其对血压谷/峰比值的影响

目的:以动态血压观察氯沙坦片对原发性高血压病患者的疗效及其对血压谷峰比值的影响。方法:60例原发性高血压病患者被随机均分为氯沙坦片组和苯那普利片组(各30例),分别给予氯沙坦片50～100mg和苯那普利片10～20mg,晨服,1次/日,疗程16周。结果:治疗后两组病人的血压均有明显下降,氯沙坦片组,收缩压(SBP)由治疗前的168.2±16.3 mmHg降至138.3±17.2mmHg,舒张压(DBP)由治疗前的99.8±8.1mmHg降至治疗后的85.3±6.4mmHg,SBP、DBP谷/峰比值分别为0.73和0.68;苯那普利组;SBP由治疗前的169.4±16.7mmHg降至139.3±16mmHg,DBP由治疗前的98.7±9.2mmHg降至治疗后的84.6±6.3mmHg,SBP、DBP谷/峰比值分别为0.67、0.63,与治疗前比较,P均<0.01,但组间比较差异不显著(P>0.05)。氯沙坦组无明显副作用,苯那普利组有6例出现咳嗽,2例咳嗽较剧烈,退出观察。结论:氯沙坦片能安全、有效、平稳地降低高血压病人的血压,其疗效与苯那普利疗效相似,但副作用明显少于后者,是高血压治疗的理想用药。     

醋柳黄酮对高血压病靶器官的影响

目的观察醋柳黄酮对高血压靶器官的影响.方法采用前瞻性随机同期单盲对照方法,将72例合格对象按随机分为醋柳黄酮组(TFH)和卡托普利组(CAP),共治疗8个月,治疗前后分别心超测量左心有关指标、观察肾功能有关指标及眼底变化.结果 (1)TFH能显著降低高血压患者血压( P<0.01);(2)TFH可以显著降低高血压病人LVMI(由166.46±42.73降至116.89±29.67)(P<0.05)并改善左心室舒张功能(P<0.05),其降低LVMI作用同降压幅度无相关性,其与SBP/DBP相关系数r分别为0.265,0.297(P>0.05),其降低LVMI及改善左心室舒张功能作用同卡托普利相当.(3)TFH可以显著降低高血压病人尿微量蛋白的排泄量(尿β2-MG(4.68±4.41 比2.1±2.11 mg/L及晨尿白蛋白30.68±27.17比16.26±12.02 μg/ml)及血β2-MG水平(5.6±5.75降至2.43±2.01 mg/L,P<0.01),其下降幅度同CAP相当(P>0.05).两组治疗后尿白蛋白下降幅度与SBP、DBP 下降幅度均无显著相关,与SBP下降幅度的r值分别为-0.321 、-0.34(P均>0.05);与DBP下降幅度的r值分别为-0.211、-0.390(P均>0.05).(4)TFH对高血压病人眼底病变亦有明显的改善作用(P＜0.05).结论 TFH在降低血压同时,有较好的改善及逆转高血压病靶器官损害作用,值得临床推广使用.     

氯沙坦治疗高血压所致充血性心力衰竭的临床价值

目的探讨氯沙坦治疗高血压所致慢性充血性心力衰竭(CHF)的临床价值.方法采用随机、单盲自身对照及组间对照,将72例高血压CHF患者分为氯沙坦组(36例),服氯沙坦25～100 mg/d,常规治疗组(对照组36例),疗程均为12周,观察两组治疗前后临床疗效,左室射血分数(LVEF)、左室舒张末期容积(LVEDV)、左室收缩末期容积(LVESV)、心胸比及实验室参数的变化.结果治疗后氯沙坦组显效率39%(14/36),有效率53%(19/36),无效率8%(3/36);对照组分别为28%(10/36),50%(18/36),22%(8/36),两组LVEDV、血压、心胸比相关参数治疗后与治疗前相比有显著改善(P<0.05,P<0.01),治疗后LVEF[(41.5%±7.2%)比(36.1%±9.3%)(P<0.01)],LVEDV[(130.6±34)mL比(151.3±35)mL(P<0.05)],LVESV[(73.5±30)mL比(88.1±31)mL(P<0.05)],血压[SBP(102±11)mm Hg比(108±13)mm Hg(P<0.05);DBP(74±6)mm Hg比(78±9)mm Hg(P<0.05)],心胸比[0.58±0.03比0.63±0.07(P<0.01)]氯沙坦组与对照组组间比较有显著差异,血生化指标两组治疗前后及组间比较均无显著性差异(P>0.05).结论氯沙坦治疗CHF疗效显著,优于常规治疗,值得临床推广应用.     

An ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the comparative antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists,irbesartan and valsartan

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to compare the change from baseline in mean diastolic ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) at 24 h post dose (trough measurement) after 8 weeks of treatment with irbesartan or valsartan in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Secondary objectives included comparing the mean changes from baseline in systolic ABP at trough; 24-h ABP; morning and night-time ABP; self-measured systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP); and office-measured SBP and DBP at trough. DESIGN: After a 3-week, single blind, placebo lead-in period, 426 subjects were randomized to receive either irbesartan 150 mg or valsartan 80 mg for 8 weeks. METHODS: Ambulatory blood pressure measurements were obtained at baseline and at week 8. Self-measured morning and evening DBP and SBP readings were obtained at home over a 7-day period at baseline and at week 8. Office-measured seated DBP and SBP measurements were obtained at trough, at baseline, and at week 8. RESULTS: Irbesartan demonstrated significantly greater reductions than valsartan for mean change from baseline in diastolic ABP at trough (-6.73 versus -4.84 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.035). Irbesartan produced significantly greater reductions than valsartan for mean systolic ABP at trough (-11.62 versus -7.5 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and for mean 24-h diastolic ABP (-6.38 versus -4.82 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.023) and systolic ABP (-10.24 versus -7.76 mmHg; P < 0.01). Irbesartan also produced significantly greater reductions than valsartan for office-measured seated DBP (-10.46 versus 7.28 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and SBP (-16.23 versus -9.96 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and for self-measured morning DBP (-6.28 versus -3.75 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and SBP (-10.21 versus -6.97 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01). Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Irbesartan was more effective than valsartan in reducing DBP and SBP at trough and in providing greater overall 24-h blood pressure-lowering efficacy.     

慢性盐负荷及补钾对健康成人血压变异性的影响

目的:探讨慢性盐负荷及补钾对健康成人血压和血压变异性的影响。方法:选取100例年龄在28～60岁的血压正常者参与为期3周的慢性盐负荷及补钾试验,包括基线调查3 d,低盐饮食、高盐饮食和高盐补钾饮食各7 d的研究。在基线调查和各干预阶段的第5,6,7天采用英国产随机零点血压计连续测量3 d血压。测量血压前受试者静坐休息5 min,测量3次,求平均值,并计算3 d血压测量值的标准差和变异系数,作为长时血压变异性指标。结果:受试者血压在低盐期较基线期显著下降［SBP:(112±11)mmHg vs.(117±14)mmHg;DBP:(74±8)mmHg vs.(76±10)mmHg,P<0.01］;高盐期较低盐期明显升高［SBP:(119±14)mmHg vs.(112±11)mmHg;DBP:(77±9)mmHg vs.(74±8)mmHg,P<0.01］;补钾期较高盐期显著降低［SBP:(114±12)mmHg vs.(119±14)mmHg;DBP:(75±8)mmHg vs.(77±9)mmHg,P<0.01］。限盐后收缩压标准差、舒张压标准差均降低［SDSBP:(3.9±1.5)mmHg vs.(4.3±1.0)mmHg;SDDBP:(3.2±1.4)mmHg vs.(3.6±1.6)mmHg,P<0.01］;高盐期较低盐期升高［SDSBP:(4.4±1.6) vs.(3.9±1.5)mmHg;SDDBP:(3.7±1.2) vs.(3.2±1.4)mmHg,P<0.01］。结论:钠、钾摄入量与血压变化密切相关,其中低盐饮食后血压下降,高盐饮食后血压升高,而在高盐负荷基础上给予大剂量补钾使血压下降。高盐饮食可增大血压变异性,限盐可降低血压变异性。     

Comparison of telmisartan versus losartan: meta-analysis of titration-to-response studies

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of telmisartan and losartan to reduce mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval in a prospectively planned meta-analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) data from two independent studies. METHODS: Data were from two independent randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, titration-to-response studies conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (seated cuff DBP 95-109 mmHg, 24-h mean ambulatory DBP >or=85 mmHg). After a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients received once-daily telmisartan 40 mg or losartan 50 mg, with up-titration after 4 weeks to telmisartan 80 mg or losartan 100 mg, respectively, if seated trough cuff DBP >or=90 mmHg. Blood pressures were recorded using ABPM immediately before randomization and after 8 weeks of active treatment. In addition, seated trough cuff blood pressures were measured at baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks of active treatment. RESULTS: Titration to the higher dose was required in 60.1% of telmisartan patients and 69.5% of losartan patients (P=0.01). Reductions from baseline in the last 6 h mean ambulatory DBP with telmisartan and losartan were 6.6+/-0.4 and 5.1+/-0.4 mmHg, respectively (P<0.01, adjusted for baseline and study); the effects were homogeneous across the two studies. During the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval, telmisartan produced greater reductions in each of the observed hourly mean ambulatory DBP values. Telmisartan-induced reductions were also greater for the majority of the observed hourly mean ambulatory DBP values over the entire 24-h dosing interval. Reductions from baseline in the last 6 h adjusted mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) for telmisartan and losartan were 9.9+/-0.6 and 7.8+/-0.6 mmHg, respectively (P=0.01). The 24-h profiles of ambulatory SBP hourly mean reductions were similar to those for DBP. Both telmisartan and losartan were found to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 40/80 mg is superior to losartan 50/100 mg in controlling DBP and SBP during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval.     

治疗性生活方式干预对高血压病患者动态血压参数的影响

目的:探讨治疗性生活方式干预对轻中度高血压病患者动态血压参数的影响。方法: 收集246例轻中度高血压病患者,随机分为治疗性生活方式干预组（干预组）130例和对照组116例。在降压药物治疗的基础上,干预组进行严格的饮食、锻炼等生活方式干预,对照组进行常规生活方式干预。所有受试者干预前后进行动态血压检测。结果: 干预1年后,干预组24 h、夜间(n)平均血压及白昼(d)收缩压(SBP)下降幅度均显著高于对照组［分别为24hSBP（22±6） mmHg(1 mmHg=0133 kPa) vs.(15±5) mmHg、nSBP(26±14) mmHg vs.(17±10) mmHg、24hDBP(10±7) mmHg vs.(8±5) mmHg、nDBP(11±7) mmHg vs.(9±6) mmHg和dSBP(20±8) mmHg vs.(14±7) mmHg,均P<005］;白昼、夜间的收缩压负荷值下降幅度干预组显著高于对照组［分别为(30±14)mmHg vs.(25±14)mmHg和(43±24)mmHg vs.(31±18)mmHg,均P<005］;血压杓型转归率及血压达标率干预组均显著高于对照组(26% vs. 10%和85% vs. 63%,均P<001)。结论: 治疗性生活方式干预显著降低了24 h（尤其是夜间）血压均值及收缩压负荷,有助于恢复患者的血压昼夜节律。     

动脉粥样硬化性肾动脉狭窄患者24小时动态血压特征及靶器官损害相关研究

目的探讨动脉粥样硬化性肾动脉狭窄(ARAS)患者24 h动态血压、昼夜节律变化特征及靶器官损害。方法选择2014年1月~2018年12月在上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院高血压科连续住院的ARAS患者121例(ARAS组),另选择同期年龄、性别、体质量指数和高血压病程等匹配的原发性高血压(EH)患者418例(EH组),观察并比较2组诊室及24 h动态血压及靶器官损害的差异。结果与EH组比较,ARAS组诊室收缩压[(155±23)mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133k Pa)vs(145±22)mm Hg,P<0.01]、诊室脉压[(75±20)mm Hg vs(65±18)mm Hg,P<0.01]、24h收缩压[(143±19)mm Hg vs(130±16)mm Hg,P<0.01]、昼间收缩压[(145±18)mm Hg vs(133±16)mm Hg,P<0.01]、夜间收缩压[(138±21)mm Hg vs(123±18)mm Hg,P<0.01]、夜间舒张压[(75±12)mm Hg vs(73±10)mm Hg,P<0.05]明显升高,差异有统计学意义。与EH组比较,ARAS组杓型血压比例明显降低,反杓型血压比例明显升高(P<0.05)。校正相关因素后,与EH组比较,ARAS组颈动脉内膜中层厚度、左心室质量指数及血浆N末端B型钠尿肽前体水平明显升高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论ARAS患者收缩压及夜间血压较高,更多表现为反杓型血压。有独立于血压及肾功能水平更严重的靶器官损害。     

氯沙坦钾对老年单纯收缩期高血压患者血压及胰岛素敏感性的影响

目的：探讨氯沙坦钾对老年单纯收缩期高血压患者血压及胰岛素抵抗的影响。方法：选择2004年1月至2007年3月的105例门诊老年单纯收缩期高血压患者，采用氯沙坦钾50～100mg／d，口服，治疗8周，检测治疗前后血压、空腹血葡萄糖、空腹胰岛素、胰岛素敏感指数，观察不良反应。结果：治疗2周后患者收缩压明显降低并达到目标水平（与治疗前相比，P〈0．01），血压无明显波动，至第8周时总有效率达88．6％，对舒张压和空腹血糖无明显影响；此外至治疗结束时，患者空腹胰岛素水平明显低于治疗前[分别为（19．8±3．9）mmol／L和（12．5±2．7）mmol／L，P〈0．053，胰岛素敏感性较治疗前明显改善[敏感性指数分别为-（4．42±0．35）和-（4．11±0．26），P〈0．05]，仅5例（4．8％）出现轻微头昏、咳嗽。结论：氯沙坦钾不仅能够有效控制老年单纯收缩期高血压患者血压而且还可改善其胰岛素敏感性。     

住院2型糖尿病患者短期血压控制及影响因素探讨

目的:探讨住院2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者短期血压控制效果及影响因素.方法:169例伴发高血压的T2DM患者给予降压等综合治疗,以出院时血压130/80 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)为界限分为达标组(97例)及未达标组(72例),比较2组入院时临床及实验室指标,并通过回归分析观察各种因素对出院时平均动脉压(MAP)水平的影响.结果:全组T2DM入院时收缩压(SBP)为(143±15)mmHg,舒张压(DBP)为(78±8)mmHg,控制达标率仅17.8%;出院时血压达标率57.4%,降压药物种类平均增加0.8种.未达标组患者入院时SBP[(151±15)∶(137±12)mmHg,P<0.01]、DBP[(80±9)∶(77±7)mmHg, P<0.01]均高于达标组,且TC及24 h尿白蛋白排泄率(UAE)显著升高.回归分析显示MAP与入院时SBP、DBP、TC及高血压病程显著正相关,与年龄呈负相关;MAP与UAE显著正相关(r=0.303, P<0.01).并发糖尿病肾病(DN)患者随UAE增多而SBP显著升高,大量蛋白尿者需要多种降压药物联合且血压难以控制.结论:T2DM患者门诊血压控制达标率低,住院短期治疗明显改善了血压控制水平;住院T2DM患者血压控制受入院时血压水平、高血压病程、高胆固醇血症、高UAE等因素影响;UAE增加可能是并发DN患者血压难以控制的直接原因.     

Effects of losartan and atenolol on left ventricular mass and neurohormonal profile in patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of the angiotensin II antagonist, losartan, with those of atenolol on left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), blood pressure and neurohormone concentrations in hypertensive patients with LVH. DESIGN: A multinational, randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: Hospital. PATIENTS: Hypertensive patients with an echocardiographically documented left ventricular mass index (LVMI) 120 g/m(2) (men) or 105 g/m(2) (women). INTERVENTIONS: Patients allocated randomly to groups received either losartan or atenolol 50 mg/day for 36 weeks, with possible titration to 100 mg/day, and addition of hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25 mg/day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in LVMI and sitting systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures after 36 weeks of treatment (study powered for non-inferiority hypothesis). All echocardiographic data were read in a central laboratory by staff blinded to the treatments and sequence of echocardiographic tapes. RESULTS: The estimated treatment difference between the losartan and atenolol regimens (mean change from baseline at week 36) in LVMI was -2.5 g/m(2) [95% confidence interval (CI) -7.36 to 2.37 g/m(2) ] in favor of losartan, indicating that losartan was significantly non-inferior ( 0.001, non-inferiority limit 8 g/m(2) ) and numerically superior to atenolol in reducing LVMI. The losartan-based regimen significantly reduced LVMI after 36 weeks compared with baseline (-6.56 g/m(2) , 95% CI -10.24 to -2.88 g/m(2) , P<0.001), whereas the atenolol-based regimen had no significant effect (-3.71 g/m, 95% CI -7.75 to 0.32 g/m(2) , P= NS). In a subset of 82 patients, significant changes in serum concentrations of atrial natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide and immunoreactive amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide were recorded in losartan-treated ( 0.01) but not atenolol-treated patients. Losartan and atenolol significantly decreased SBP and DBP from baseline after 6, 12, 24 and 36 weeks. The changes from baseline in DBP were greater in the atenolol group at weeks 6 and 36 [difference -2.6 mmHg ( P= 0.016) at week 36]. However, both treatment regimens achieved similar SBP/DBP values at week 36 (141.1 +/- 12.8/86.8 +/- 8.2 mmHg for losartan and 141.4 +/- 17.2/85.0 +/- 10.1 mmHg for atenolol, respectively). Overall, losartan treatment was associated with significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events, compared with atenolol (10 and 22%, respectively, P= 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Both losartan- and atenolol-based regimens effectively decreased blood pressure. Losartan was non-inferior and numerically superior to atenolol in regression of LVH. The reduction in hypertrophy with losartan treatment was accompanied by reductions in circulating concentrations of cardiac natriuretic peptides. Losartan, by specifically blocking angiotensin II, may therefore have effects on the heart beyond those expected from the decrease in blood pressure alone. Losartan was better tolerated than atenolol.     

血压正常高值者24小时动态血压分析

目的:探讨以偶测血压为诊断标准血压正常高值人群的24 h动态血压特点。方法:采用动态血压测定仪分别对理想血压组82例、血压正常高值组183例及高血压组127例受试者进行24 h动态血压检测(ABPM)。结果:24 h收缩压变异系数(24hSSD)理想血压组、血压正常高值组、高血压组分别为(14.0±2.1)%、(17.2±3.2)%和(20.5±4.6)%;24 h舒张压变异系数(24hDSD)3组分别为(10.4±1.9)%、(13.1±1.9)%和(16.3±2.1)%;非杓型血压所占比例分别为7%、25%、39%;收缩压负荷率(SBP-L)为(12±10)%、(35±20)%和(67±25)%;舒张压负荷率(DBP-L)为(12±9)%、(33±20)%和(62±25)%;血压正常高值组较理想血压组高、较高血压组低(分别P0.05,P0.01);收缩压夜间下降率(SBPF)分别为(17.4±4.3)%、(12.5±3.3)%和(9.2±3.6)%;舒张压夜间下降率为(DBPF)(16.1±3.7)%、(11.4±2.9)%和(9.1±3.3)%,较理想血压组低、较高血压组高(P0.01)。结论:正常高值人群较理想血压组血压平均水平升高,血压变异、血压负荷、非杓型血压比例增加,夜间血压下降率降低。     

Clinical prediction of normotension in borderline hypertensive men--a 10 year study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) as a tool for long-term prediction of future blood pressure (BP) status in high normal and low stage 1 hypertensives. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 165 men from a population screening program with diastolic BP (DBP) 85-94 mmHg and a systolic BP (SBP) < 150 mmHg performed a 24-h ABPM. Ten years later, 120 participants (73%) returned for renewed measurements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood pressure status at 10 years. RESULTS: At the 10-year follow-up, 53% of the participants were classified as hypertensive (HT) (BP > or = 140/90 or taking anti-hypertensive medication) and 47% were classified as normotensive (NT) (BP < 140/90 mmHg). There was no significant baseline differences in office SBP levels between those who were normotensive or hypertensive at follow-up (136/91 versus 138/92 mmHg), whereas both SBP and DBP night-time levels were significantly lower in the future normotensives as compared to the future hypertensives (107/69 versus 112/74 mmHg, P < 0.01). Using recommended normalcy night-time ABP levels of < 120/75 mmHg in addition to office BP (140/90) at baseline, over 85% of the subjects were correctly classified provided they met both clinic and ambulatory night-time criteria for HT and NT classification at baseline. CONCLUSION: The use of ABPM in addition to office BP's in patients with borderline hypertension greatly increases the possibility of identifying those individuals who are at a very small risk of developing future hypertension. This could potentially lead to considerable savings in both patient anxiety, physician time and resource consumption.