住院2型糖尿病患者血压控制的影响因素

目的探讨住院2型糖尿病(type2diabetes mellitus,T2DM)患者血压控制的影响因素。方法 169例合并原发性高血压(高血压)的T2DM患者给予降压等综合治疗,以出院时血压130/80mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133kPa)为界限分为达标组(n=97)及未达标组(n=72),比较两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水平的影响。结果全组T2DM入院时收缩压为(143±15)mm Hg,舒张压为(78±8)mm Hg,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1种。未达标组患者入院时收缩压[(151±15)mm Hg vs.(137±12)mm Hg,P0.05)、舒张压[(80±9)mm Hg vs.(77±7)mm Hg,P0.05]均高于达标组,且血清总胆固醇浓度及24h尿白蛋白排泄率显著升高。回归分析显示,平均动脉压与入院时收缩压、舒张压、血清总胆固醇及高血压病程显著正相关,与年龄负相关;平均动脉压与尿白蛋白排泄率显著正相关(r=0.303,P0.01)。合并糖尿病肾病患者随尿白蛋白排泄率增多而收缩压显著升高,大量蛋白尿者需要多种降压药物联合治疗且血压难以控制。结论 T2DM患者门诊血压控制达标率低;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、高尿白蛋白排泄率等因素影响;尿白蛋白排泄率增加可能是合并糖尿病肾病患者血压难以控制的直接原因。     

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.     

控制血糖对老年原发性高血压合并2型糖尿病患者血压变异性的影响

目的探讨控制血糖对老年原发性高血压（EH）合并2型糖尿病（T2DM）患者血压变异性（BPV）的影响。方法临床确诊60例EH合并T2DM老年患者,糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）含量检测均〉8.0 mmol/L,在给予原有抗高血压药物治疗同时,行控制血糖治疗3月后复查HbA1c,根据检测指标分为2组：A组为HbA1c达标组（HbA1c〈7.0 mmol/L）,B组为HbA1c未达标组（HbA1c〉7.0 mmol/L）。控制血糖治疗前后分别进行动态血压测定,比较患者BPV的变化。以各时间段血压的标准差（SD）作为血压变异的指标：24 h收缩压变异（24hSSD）和24 h舒张压变异（24hDSD）、白昼收缩压变异（dSSD）和舒张压变异（dDSD）、夜间收缩压变异（nSSD）和舒张压变异（nDSD）。结果 （1）EH合并T2DM患者,行控制血糖治疗HbA1c达标组治疗后与治疗前比较,24hDSD、dDSD、nDSD无显著差异（P〉0.05）,24hSSD、dSSD、nSSD有显著差异（P〈0.05）。（2）EH合并T2DM患者,行控制血糖治疗HbA1c未达标组治疗后与治疗前比较,患者的24hSSD、24hDSD、dSSD、dDSD、nDSD均无显著差异（P〉0.05）,nSSD有显著差异（P〈0.05）。（3）EH合并T2DM患者24hSSD、24hDSD变化与HbA1c含量呈正相关（r=0.531、0.667,P〈0.05）。结论在原有抗高血压药物治疗同时,控制血糖治疗可显著改善EH合并T2DM患者的BPV,改善其心血管系统血流动力学,从而减少心血管病并发症。     

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and type 2 diabetes mellitus

Hypertension is one of the main risk factors for the onset and progression of chronic complications in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) provides a better correlation with target organ lesions than BP obtained in the office. Furthermore, it allows the evaluation of distinct BP parameters such as the 24-h, daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic BP means, BP loads and the absence of nocturnal drop of BP, as well as the identification of white-coat and masked hypertension. DM patients have higher daytime and nighttime BP means than non-DM patients. In addition, one third of normotensive type 2 DM patients have masked hypertension, which is associated with an increase in albuminuria and in left ventricle wall thickness. On the other hand, the prevalence and effect of white-coat hypertension in type 2 DM patients have not yet been properly evaluated. The absence of nocturnal drop of BP does not add information to the 24 h, daytime or nighttime BP measurements, but the nighttime BP means seem to be relevant in DM retinopathy. In conclusion, BP determination by ABPM allows better patient risk stratification for the development of DM chronic complications and is an essential instrument for effective BP control in these patients.     

A nationwide assessment of blood pressure control and the associated factors in Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

A subgroup analysis of the nationwide, cross‐sectional 3B STUDY was performed to understand the current blood pressure (BP) control status and treatment patterns in Chinese diabetes patients as well as to identify factors associated with BP control. The demographic data, anthropometric parameters, and laboratory results were collected from 24 512 type 2 diabetes patients. The BP goal was a systolic BP <130 mm Hg and a diastolic BP <80 mm Hg regardless of a history of hypertension or current antihypertensive treatment. The overall prevalence of hypertension was 59.9% with geographical differences. Among the diabetes patients with hypertension, 76.9% received antihypertensive medicines. Calcium channel blockers (39.3%), angiotensin II receptor antagonists (26.6%), and then β‐blockers (14.0%) or angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (13.6%) were frequently used for BP control. Only 17.5% (n = 2658) of diabetes patients with hypertension reached the recommended target BP. Body mass index <24 kg/m², urban resident, frequent physical activity, good adherence to medication, comorbidity with cardiovascular disease, achieving glycemic goal (HbA1c <7.0%), achieving lipid goal (low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <2.59 mmol/L) were independent factors that predicted achievement of target BP goal. On the contrary, comorbidity with chronic kidney disease predicted failure to achieve target BP goal. Patients who were treated in a cardiology department or lived in the North were more likely to achieve BP goals. A considerable proportion of diabetic patients failed to achieve guideline‐recommended BP targets. More aggressive efforts should be made to overcome the diverse barriers and facilitate the optimization of diabetes management.     

糖尿病对高血压患者动态血压及血压变异性的影响

目的 探讨2型糖尿病（T2DM）对原发性高血压（EH）患者动态血压（ambulatory blood pressure，ABP）及血压变异性（blood pressure variability，BPV）的影响。方法 选取36例单纯EH及33例合并T2DM的EH患者，行24hABP监测，对2组患者的ABP及BPV进行对比分析。结果 与单纯EH患者相比，合并T2DM的EH患者日间平均收缩压（dmSBP）（P〈0，05）、日间脉压（dmPP）（P〈0.01）、日间收缩压标准差（dSBPSD）（P〈0.01）及日间收缩压标准差变异系数（dSBPCV）（P〈0．05）显著增大。结论 T2DM加重EH患者心血管系统的结构与功能异常，引起ABP及BPV增大；改善其体内糖代谢状况，将有助于改善其心血管系统血流动力学，从而减少心血管并发症。     

2型糖尿病合并脑梗塞与血脂、血压分析

分析2型糖尿病合并脑梗塞与血脂、血压异常的关系.收集我院2型糖尿病患者100例,其中合并脑梗塞者60例,正常对照组40例.分别测定血脂、血压并进行比较.结果糖尿病合并脑梗塞组血甘油三酯、载脂蛋白B、收缩压明显升高,高密度脂蛋白、载脂蛋白A1显著降低.血甘油三酯、收缩压升高、高密度脂蛋白降低是糖尿病并发脑梗塞的危险因素.     

糖尿病患者的血压控制目标

糖尿病的患病率在全世界范围都在不断地增长,成为一个非常重要的公共卫生问题。在中国,由于经济的高速发展、生活水平的快速提高,人均寿命的不断延长,糖尿病的发病率的增高速度更快,甚至超出了我们的想象。据杨文英教授新近发表的有关中国糖尿病患病率的文献报道,中国20岁以上的成年人中2型糖尿病的人数可以达到9200万,另外还有将近1500万的糖尿病前期患者。中国将成为或者可能已经是世界上糖尿病人数最多的国家。     

Insulin therapy may increase blood pressure levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of insulin therapy on blood pressure levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2 DM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of clinical records of 313 T2DM patients (125 men and 188 women), excluding those with proteinuria or hypertensive diseases and those taking drugs that may influence blood pressure levels except antihypertensive therapy. Mean age was 56.3 +/- 11.7 years and mean duration of diabetes was 7.1 +/- 5.5 years. After one week of observation under diet and maximal doses of oral antidiabetic drugs, patients who did not improve their glucose control were changed towards insulin therapy (n=129) and formed the insulin treated group (ITG), those who improved their glucose levels were maintained under oral therapy (n=184) and formed the orally treated group (OTG). Blood pressure levels were compared between the two groups at baseline and after a mean follow-up period of 12.1 +/- 6.1 months. Hypertension was considered if patients were known and treated or if SBP >=140 mmHg and/or DBP >=90 mmHg. RESULTS: At baseline, patients in ITG were moderately older (58.4 +/- 11 vs 54.9 +/- 12.1 years, p<0.05), had a longer duration of diabetes (9.2 +/- 6.2 vs 5.7 +/- 5 years, p<0.01), a lower BMI (24.6 +/- 4.6 vs 28.8 +/- 6.6 kg/m(2), p<0.01) and a higher frequency of retinopathy (44% vs 31.1%, p<0.05). There was no significant difference regarding sex ratio, WHR, family history of hypertension, plasma levels of creatinine and lipid parameters. SBP, DBP and frequency of hypertension were similar in both groups at baseline. After follow up, insulin treated group exhibited higher levels of SBP (150 +/- 25.7 vs 138.6 +/- 27.1 mmHg, p<0.001) and DBP (84.1 +/- 13 vs 75.8 +/- 14.9 mmHg, p<0.001) than orally treated group. Progression rate of hypertension frequency was mildly but not significantly higher in ITG than in OTG (+21% vs +12%, p=0.08) and was associated with weight gain in ITG only. SBP increase was mildly correlated with weight gain (p=0.06). In ITG, higher values of BMI (> 27 kg/m(2)) at baseline were associated with the highest increases of blood pressure levels under insulin therapy. No significant relationship was found with insulin doses. CONCLUSION: Insulin therapy may contribute to the development of hypertension in T2DM obese patients. Additional prospective randomised studies are required for a better appreciation of such influence.     

合并高血压的老年2型糖尿病患者血压控制目标探讨

目的探讨老年2型糖尿病合并高血压患者降压的目标值。方法选取2008年1月至2011年1月在福建省立医院内科就诊的707例65岁以上老年2型糖尿病合并高血压患者,其中男324例,女383例,平均年龄（72±6）岁。按收缩压（SBP）高低分为收缩压严格控制组（130mm Hg≤SBP〈140mmHg,1mmHg=0．133kPa）235例,收缩压宽松控制组（140mmHg≤SBP〈160mm Hg）472例,两组患者收缩压水平均维持至少3年。所有患者进行12导联心电图检查,预估肾小球滤过率（eGFR）通过Cockcroft—Gault公式计算。将心电图aVL导联R波的电压（RaVL）作为心血管风险的替代指标,将eGFR作为评价肾功能的指标。以RaVL≥0．57mV和〈0．57mV作为二分类变量,使用logistic回归法分析心血管疾病风险。结果收缩压宽松控制组与严格控制组RaVL分别为：0,55（0．50～0．59）、0．58（0．52～0．64）mV,差异无统计学意义（F：0．235,P〉0．05）。收缩压宽松控制组eGFR为55．6（53．2～58．0）ml／min,低于收缩压严格控制组[59．6（56．2～63．1）ml／min],但差异无统计学意义（F=1．289,P〉0．05）。将RaVL≥0．57mV及RaVL〈0．57mV作为因变量进行多因素logistic回归分析发现,收缩压宽松控制组RaVL≥0．57mV的风险与收缩压严格控制组相比差异无统计学意义（OR=0．927,95％CI：0．567～1．514,P〉0．05）。结论老年2型糖尿病合并高血压患者收缩压的目标值控制在140mm Hg以下可能并不改善心血管和肾脏预后。     

Pulse pressure predicts cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure (PP), a marker of arterial stiffness, is a better predictor of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk than systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in older adults. Whether this is also true in subjects with type 2 diabetes, who are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, is unknown. METHODS: Data on 2911 type 2 diabetic subjects relating to blood pressure (BP), other risk factors, and cardiovascular events were abstracted from The Cardiff Diabetes Database. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship among BP components and the risk of CHD, cerebrovascular (CVD), and peripheral vascular (PVD) events after correction for age, gender, cholesterol, and smoking status. RESULTS: In the 4-year follow-up period there were 574 CHD, 168 CVD, and 157 PVD events. Both PP and SBP, but not DBP, were positively associated with the risk of all event types. However, PP emerged as the best predictor of CHD events, and SBP as the best predictor of CVD and PVD events. Total and HDL-cholesterol were the most important variables associated with PP after age. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, PP is a better predictor of CHD events than SBP in persons with type 2 diabetes, but the converse is true for CVD and PVD.     

血糖控制对2型糖尿病患者骨密度的影响

目的 观察血糖控制及阿仑膦酸钠对2型糖尿病合并骨质疏松症的影响.方法 将入选病例随机分为阿伦膦酸钠（AL）组（服用阿仑膦酸钠＋钙尔奇D）及对照组（服用钙尔奇D）,每组各50例,并控制血糖,于0、12月检测同部位骨密度,按血糖控制是否达标分组,观察比较各组骨密度值变化的差别.结果 血糖达标组骨密度增幅较未达标组高,二者比较有显著性差异（P＜0.01）.AL组中血糖控制达标亚组较其余组别骨密度增幅明显高,对照组中血糖控制未达标亚组较其余组别骨密度增幅明显低,均有显著性差异（P均＜0.05）.结论 血糖控制达标可改善2型糖尿病患者骨密度,同时服用阿仑膦酸钠疗效更明显.