老年脑卒中高血压患者24 h动态血压的特点及临床意义

目的 探讨老年脑卒中高血压患者24h动态血压的特点及其临床意义。方法 使用美国产太空实验室90207型无创伤性动态血压监测仪对108例老年脑卒中高血压患者进行24h动态血压监测，包括采用固定日间和夜间时间段，日间每15分钟、夜间每30分钟记录1次。包括24h、日间及夜间收缩压及舒张压，24h、日间及夜间血压负荷值。结果 108例患者24h平均血压、平均脉压及血压负荷值等参数均明显高于正常值。白大衣高血压占13．5％。结论 24h动态血压监测比随机血压测定更准确、更能反映患者的血压水平，准确预测心脑血管并发症发生的危险性。     

老年人动态血压监测特点及临床意义

目的 通过对老年高血压组和老年正常血压组24h动态血压监测数值的比较，探讨动态血压监测的临床意义。方法 采用日本生产的TM2421型无创性、便携式动态血压监测仪对在我院疗养的老干部140例进行24h动态血压监测。记录24h、日间和夜间收缩压及舒张压，24h、日间和夜间血压负荷值。结果老年高血压组24h平均收缩压及舒张压、日间平均收缩压及舒张压、夜间平均收缩压及舒张压、24h平均压及脉压、24h收缩压及舒张压负荷值均明显高于老年正常血压组。其中白大衣高血压占8．1％。结论 老年高血压组的血压昼夜波动节律较老年正常组缩小、杓底变浅甚至消失，ABPM对诊断WCH、评测高血压对靶器官的损害和评价降压药物的效果有重要的临床意义。     

动态血压监测的临床应用

1动态血压监测的介绍 1．1动态血压监测的概念所谓的24小时动态血压监测，就是应用动态血压记录仪测量高血压患者24小时内、每间隔一定时间的血压值的方法。它测量的数值包括收缩压、舒张压、24小时平均动脉压、心率、日间平均血压、夜间平均血压、每小时平均血压、血压负荷以及夜间血压较日间血压平均下降的百分数等数据。其最大的优点是：既没有“白大衣”效应的影响，又不影响患者的日常活动和生活方式。能够更真实的反应24小时血压的动态节律变化。     

重视24h动态血压监测在临床实践中的应用

目的:探讨24h动态血压监测在住院患者中应用情况及对策。方法:回顾性地收集2004-2008年本院内一科进行过24h动态血压监测的住院患者的动态血压数据及相关资料,并进行统计分析。结果:在242例患者中,白大衣高血压(n=20)、隐匿性高血压(n=55)、单纯日间高血压(n=3)、单纯夜间高血压(n=20)的检出率分别是8.3%,22.7%,1.2%,8.3%,单用诊室血压诊断高血压漏诊率较高。结论:应加强24h动态血压监测在临床实践中的应用。     

老年高血压病人血压昼夜节律变化的监测与护理

目的 评价老年人高血压病人24h动态血压昼夜节律变化，及24h动态血压监测对临床护理的作用和价值。方法 采用无创性携带式动态血压监测仪（日本尼士DS-250）监测72例老年高血压病人24h血压昼夜节律变化，以白昼每30min、夜晚每60min测收缩压、舒张压、心率1次，时间从上午8：00至次日8：00。结果 通过对白天、夜间平均收缩压与舒张压的数据的统计，发现夜间较白天的血压均值下降，提示大多数病人昼夜血压波动明显。结论 对老年高血压病人血压昼夜节律变化的监测，在临床护理中可以全面观察病人的血压，合理安排服药时间，对病人的治疗、康复具有重要意义。     

高血压合并冠心病患者血压变异性及动态血压的变化

[目的]分析高血压合并冠心痛患者的血压变异性与动态血压变化特点.[方法]选取2014年6月至2015年6月本院收治的160例高血压患者的临床资料.根据冠脉造影(CGA)结果或冠脉CT成像(CTA)诊断结果将其分为冠心病合并高血压组(n=80,观察组),单纯性高血压组(n=80,对照组),对两组患者动态血压和血压变异性指标进行分析比较.[结果]观察组患者日间平均收缩压、夜间平均收缩压、24h平均收缩压、日间平均脉压、夜间平均脉压、24h平均脉压、日间平均收缩压标准差、夜间平均收缩压标准差、24h平均收缩压标准差均显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(均P＜0.05);观察组与对照组患者在日间平均舒张压、夜间平均舒张压、24h平均舒张压、日间平均舒张压标准差、夜间平均舒张压标准差、24h平均舒张压标准差方面比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P＞0.05).[结论]高血压合并冠心病患者其动态血压波动比较大,且血压变异性相对增大,加强其血压动态血压与血压变异性监测对冠心病合并高血压的临床诊治有着一定的作用.     

动态血压监测诊断老年人高血压病的价值及临床意义

对112例诊断的初发老年高压血压病患者及124例诊断为正常血压偏高的老年人进行动态血压监测。诊断为高血压病患者中26例(23.2%)为白大衣高血压,其次诊断为正常血压偏高者中有22例(17.7%)为夜间高血压病患者。诊断为高血压病老年患者中白大衣高血压发生率比较高,而在诊断为血压正常的老年人中有一部分为夜间高血压,对老年人进行动态血压监测具有非常重要的意义。     

动态血压监测在高血压病诊断中的价值

目的评价动态血压监测在高血压病诊断中的价值。方法对68例高血压病患者与59例血压偏高者进行24 h动态血压监测。结果高血压组有白大衣高血压12例,占18%(12/68);血压偏高组中有9例血压升高,占15%(9/59)。结论动态血压监测有助于发现白大衣高血压,减少血压偏高人群中高血压的漏诊。     

老年高血压患者治疗过程中的动态血压特点和护理对策

目的探讨老年高血压患者治疗过程中的动态血压特点和护理对策。方法选取207例老年高血压患者进行24h动态血压监测,并分成一般老年组和高龄老年组,进行比较分析。结果高龄老年组的日间、夜间平均收缩压均高于一般老年组,日间、夜间平均舒张压均明显低于一般老年组,高龄老年组的脉压明显高于一般老年组,差异均具有统计学意义。高龄老年组昼夜节律异常发生率(反杓形+非杓形)占92.4%,一般老年组昼夜节律异常发生率(反杓形+非杓形)占93.3%,两组夜间下降率差异有统计学意义。结论 24h动态血压监测能更准确全面了解老年高血压患者的血压控制情况,为临床用药和护理提供更为合理的依据。     

老年原发性高血压患者与健康体检者昼夜血压变异与靶器官损伤的关系

目的探讨老年原发性高血压患者动态血压变化及血压变异性与靶器官损害之间的关系.方法①选择1997-06/2002-08解放军第三○五医院内科住院的老年原发性高血压患者316例,年龄60～82岁.根据靶器官损害程度将患者分为2组：无靶器官损害组138例（高血压Ⅰ期）和靶器官损害组178例（高血压Ⅱ～Ⅲ期）.另选本院正常健康体检者130人为对照组,年龄60～78岁.纳入对象对检查项目知情同意.②应用无创性携带式血压监测仪监测纳入对象24 h动态血压,按Parati等方法,以24 h动态血压监测到的血压标准差为长时血压变异指标,包括24 h收缩压和舒张压标准差,白天收缩压和舒张压标准差,夜间收缩压和舒张压标准差.③计量资料差异性比较采用t检验.结果原发性高血压患者316例及健康者130人均进入结果分析.高血压患者24 h动态血压及血压变异参数均明显高于对照组（P＜0.05～0.01）.无靶器官损害组与有靶器官损害组组间夜间平均收缩压和舒张压及夜间收缩压和舒张压标准差差异不明显（P＞0.05）;有靶器官损害组日间平均血压及血压变异性参数普遍高于无靶器官损害组（P＜0.05～0.01）.结论日间平均血压及血压变异性参数变化与靶器官损害程度有关.     

Long‐term reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure in unselected elderly subjects

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long‐term reproducibility and validity of 24‐h ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) in an unselected elderly population. In a rural Finnish community 503 randomly chosen invited persons over 65 years of age participated and went through 24‐h ABPM. As part of the validation of the methodology, the reproducibility study was conducted in 26 persons (age 65–76 years). Two identical sets of measurement were performed at 4–12 (median 8) month intervals. The agreement between measurements was assessed by correlation coefficients and standard deviation (SD) of the differences. There were no significant differences in 24‐h, daytime and night‐time average diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and daytime average systolic blood pressure (SBP) between the two measurements. During the second measurement, 24‐h SBP and night‐time average SBP were slightly higher than those obtained by the first monitoring. Average 24‐h SBP and DBP were 18 and 7 mmHg lower, respectively, than office blood pressure averages. The correlation coefficients were significantly higher for 24‐h ambulatory blood pressure than for office blood pressure. The SD of the mean difference between visits was significantly lower for 24‐h ambulatory blood pressure than for office blood pressure measurements. These findings show that the long‐term reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure is good in an elderly unselected population and better than the office blood pressure reproducibility.     

Hypertension: New perspective on its definition and clinical management by bedtime therapy substantially reduces cardiovascular disease risk

Diagnosis of hypertension—elevated blood pressure (BP) associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk—and its management for decades have been based primarily on single time‐of‐day office BP measurements (OBPM) assumed representative of systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the entire 24‐hours span. Around‐the‐clock ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), however, reveals BP undergoes 24‐hours patterning characterized in normotensives and uncomplicated hypertensives by striking morning‐time rise, 2 daytime peaks—one ~2‐3 hours after awakening and the other early evening, small midafternoon nadir and 10‐20% decline (BP dipping) in the asleep BP mean relative to the wake‐time BP mean. A growing number of outcome trials substantiate correlation between BP and target organ damage, vascular and other risks is greater for the ABPM‐derived asleep BP mean, independent and stronger predictor of CVD risk, than daytime OBPM or ABPM‐derived awake BP. Additionally, bedtime hypertension chronotherapy, that is, ingestion of ≥1 conventional hypertension medications at bedtime to achieve efficient attenuation of asleep BP, better reduces total CVD events by 61% and major events (CVD death, myocardial infarction, ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke) by 67%—even in more vulnerable chronic kidney disease, diabetes and resistant hypertension patients—than customary on‐awaking therapy that targets wake‐time BP. Such findings of around‐the‐clock ABPM and bedtime hypertension outcome trials, consistently indicating greater importance of asleep BP than daytime OBPM or ambulatory awake BP, call for a new definition of true arterial hypertension plus modern approaches for its diagnosis and management.     

Differential time effect profiles of amlodipine, as compared to valsartan, revealed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, self blood pressure measurements and dose omission protocol

Amlodipine and valsartan are once-daily antihypertensive agents. To date, no comparison between these agents given as monotherapies was reported. This study was aimed to evaluate the therapeutic coverage and safety of amlodipine and valsartan in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparative study. After a 4-week placebo wash-out period, 246 outpatients with office diastolic blood pressure 95 < or = DBP < or =110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 180 mmHg, in addition to a mean daytime SBP and/or DBP > 135/85 mmHg on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), were randomly allocated to once-daily amlodipine 5-10 mg or valsartan 40-80 mg, for 12 weeks. In a subgroup of patients, 48-h ABPM were performed at the end of the treatment period. Dose omission was simulated by a single-blind placebo dosing. The primary efficacy end-point was the 24-h trough office BP after 12 weeks of active therapy. The reductions in 24-h trough BP were more pronounced in amlodipine compared with valsartan group as well in office [SBP: -17.8 +/- 10.9 vs. -14.6 +/- 11.2, P = 0.025, DBP: -12.7 +/- 7.2 vs. -10.9 +/- 7.8 mmHg, P = 0.06) as in ambulatory BP (SBP/DBP: -13.0 +/- 13.7/-10.8 +/- 9.1 vs. -7.2 +/- 19.4/-4.9 +/- 13.4 mmHg, P < 0.05). Forty-eight hours after the last active dose, the slope of the morning BP surge (4-9 h) was less steep with amlodipine vs. valsartan [DBP (P < 0.04), SBP (n.s.)]. Ankle edema were more often reported in amlodipine group. These results suggest a superior BP lowering and a longer duration of action with amlodipine compared with valsartan.     

肾实质性高血压患者动态血压变化的临床意义

目的:探讨肾实质性高血压患者动态血压昼夜变化的临床意义。方法:对50例临床诊断为肾实质性高血压患者的临床诊断进行分组:肾功能不全代偿期组20例;肾功能不全失代偿期组17例;肾功能衰竭期组13例;另选健康体检中动态血压监测正常者30例为对照组。获取4组对象白昼平均收缩压和舒张压、夜间平均收缩压和舒张压、24小时平均收缩压和舒张压、夜间/白昼平均收缩压和舒张压、平均动脉压及收缩压负荷值与舒张压负荷值。结果:(1)肾实质性高血压3组各项参数均高于对照组,昼夜曲线消失,但未见反勺型;(2)肾实质性高血压3组各项参数相互之间经方差检验有明显差别。尤其是收缩压与舒张压负荷值,在肾功能不全失代偿期组明显升高,在肾功能衰竭期组已超过60%。(3)肾实质性高血压各组之间收缩压负荷值、舒张压负荷值及平均动脉压存在显著差异。结论:肾实质性高血压患者血压昼夜节律消失,当肾功能失代偿时,血压负荷值及MAP随着肾功能的进一步恶化而升高。     

血压负荷与老年高血压病并靶器官损害

目的 :采用动态血压 (ABPM)监测方法研究老年原发性高血压 (EH)患者的血压负荷变化与靶器官受损的关系。方法 :对 86例老年 (EH)患者进行 2 4h动态血压监测 ,根据检测结果随机分为杓型组或非杓型组 ,并分析血压负荷与高血压所致的靶器官损害 (心房纤颤、室性心律失常 ,充血性心力衰竭、脑血管意外 )进行比较。结果 :2 4h动态平均收缩压 (SBP)和平均舒张压(DBP)与上述各项事件有明显差异 (P <0 .0 1) ,脑血管意外发生与夜间平均SBP、DBP有显著差异 (P <0 .0 1)。而动态血压中有杓型变化与无杓型变化者比较 ,其心脑血管并发症的发病率明显降低 ,血压负荷值 >35 %是心脑血管疾病发生的信号。结论 :血压昼夜节律、2 4h总体SBP水平及SBP、DBP负荷值是导致老年高血压并心脑在管疾病发生率高的主要原因     

Population study of ambulatory blood pressure in a rural community in northern Japan

A cross sectional survey was performed on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in a rural community in northern Japan. ABP was measured in 468 participants (148 men and 320 women, or 27.3% of the less than or equal to 20 year-old population in the study region) with a Colin ABPM 630, an ABP monitoring system. ABP was determined every 30 min for 24 hr. All-day average of 24 hr ambulatory systolic, (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in these subjects were 121.5 +/- 11.8 and 71.7 +/- 8.0 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.), respectively. Ambulatory SBP and DBP levels increased gradually with an increase in age in both sexes. The age dependent increase in SBP was, however, extremely small in men compared with that in the casual SBP of the ordinary Japanese reported. The minimal age-dependent increase in ambulatory SBP in men reflects a high ambulatory SBP in those below 50 years-old as well as a minimal increase in ambulatory SBP in those over 50. Ambulatory SBPs in women were lower than those in men until they reach the age of 50 years. Ambulatory SBP levels in men and women were similar after their 60's. Ambulatory DBP tended to fall or remain at the same level after 60 years-old. Thus, a greater pulse pressure was observed in elderly subjects. Casual SBP and DBP in the ordinary Japanese were significantly higher than the daytime average ambulatory SBP and DBP in all age groups of both sexes in the population except those in their 20's. The results suggests that ABP has different clinical characteristics and may have a different clinical significance from casual BP.     

老年高血压患者认知障碍与动态血压的关系分析

目的　分析老年高血压患者认知功能障碍与动态血压的关系。方法　对 117例老年高血压患者进行动态血压检测 ,并采用微型智能量表 (mini- mental state examination,MMSE)评定认知功能。结果　在控制年龄、性别和教育程度的影响之后 ,除 2 4 h平均舒张压之外 ,其他动态血压指标均与认知功能 (以 MMSE得分的对数 Ig MMSE表示 )显著负相关 ,尤其 2 4 h平均收缩压、日间平均收缩压、日间收缩压血压负荷、夜间舒张压血压负荷与认知功能呈更明显的负相关。以 Ig MMSE作为因变量 ,进行多元逐步回归分析 ,仅日间平均收缩压和年龄被纳入回归方程。“杓型”高血压患者的 MMSE得分显著高于“非杓型”者。结论　收缩压尤其是日间平均收缩压升高和血压节律紊乱是影响老年认知功能的重要因素     

Hydrochlorothiazide added to valsartan is more effective than when added to olmesartan in reducing blood pressure in moderately hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by monotherapy

This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects on blood pressure of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg added to valsartan 160 mg or to olmesartan 20 mg in hypertensive patients. After a 2-wk placebo period, 130 patients, aged 35 to 75 y, with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥99 and <110 mm Hg were randomly assigned to olmesartan 20 mg once daily or to valsartan 160 mg once daily according to a prospective, parallel-arm study design. After 4 wk of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP ≥90 mm Hg) were given combination treatment with HCTZ 12.5 mg for an additional 4 wk. At the end of the placebo period and at the end of each treatment period, clinical and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded. At the end of the combination therapy period, venous blood samples were drawn 2, 4, and 24 h after drug intake for evaluation of HCTZ plasma concentrations. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory BP reduction than monotherapy. However, mean reduction from baseline in the valsartan/HCTZ-treated patients (-21.5/-14.6 mm Hg for 24 h, -21.8/-14.9 mm Hg for daytime, and -20.4/-13.7 mm Hg for nighttime systolic blood pressure [SBP]/DBP) was greater than in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients (-18.8/-12.3 mm Hg for 24 h, -19.3/-12.8 mm Hg for daytime, and -17.4/-10.6 mm Hg for nighttime SBP/DBP). The difference between the effects of the 2 treatments was significant (P<.01). In particular, compared with monotherapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg was significantly greater in the valsartan group than in those treated with olmesartan; the difference was more evident for nighttime BP values. Plasma concentrations of HCTZ were significantly greater with valsartan than with olmesartan at each determination time (P<.05). These findings suggest that the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to valsartan 160 mg monotherapy produces a greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 mg monotherapy.     

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Response to Once-Daily Fimasartan: An 8-Week,Multicenter, Randomized,Double-Blind,Active-Comparator,Parallel-Group Study in Korean Patients With Mild To Moderate Essential Hypertension

Background

Fimasartan, a selective angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, was approved in Korea for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 24-hour blood pressure (BP) profiles before and after 8-week treatment with fimasartan and to compare them with those of valsartan.

Methods

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Korean patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were enrolled and randomly received once-daily oral fimasartan 60 or 120 mg or valsartan 80 mg for 8 weeks. ABPM was performed before and after 8-week treatment, and clinic BP was also measured. Based on ABPM data, trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index were derived. Tolerability was monitored throughout the study.

Results

Ninety-two patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 54.1 [8.2] years; weight, 67.9 [10.2] kg). After 8 weeks, 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPs (SBP and DBP, respectively) were significantly decreased in all 3 treatment groups (range: SBP, –9.2 to –15.6 mm Hg; DBP, –5.0 to –10.7 mm Hg; P <0.0001–<0.05). The global trough-to-peak ratios of ambulatory DBP in the fimasartan groups were 0.74 (60 mg/d) and 0.81 (120 mg/d)—45.1% and 58.8% higher, respectively, than the ratio of 0.51 in the valsartan group. Fimasartan 60 mg/d was associated with 53.5% (SBP) and 68.3% (DBP) greater smoothness index scores compared with those with valsartan 80 mg/d (SBP, 1.52 vs. 0.99; DBP, 1.38 vs. 0.82). The decrease in clinic-measured DBP was significantly greater in the fimasartan 60-mg/d group compared with that in the valsartan 80-mg/d group (–14.0 vs –8.7 mm Hg; P = 0.0380). Fimasartan was well tolerated; headache was the most common adverse event.

Conclusion

Once-daily fimasartan effectively maintained a BP-reduction profile over the full 24-hour dosing interval; this profile was comparable to or slightly better than that of once-daily valsartan. Fimasartan was well tolerated; headache was the most common adverse event. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00922441.     

Time-effect profile of antihypertensive agents assessed with trough/peak ratio,smoothness index and dose omission: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study with trandolapril vs. quinapril

The duration of action of antihypertensive drugs may be assessed by several methods using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). The aim of this double-blind, randomized study was to compare the time-effect profile of once daily Trandolapril (Tra) 2 mg vs. Quinapril (Qui) 20 mg in 92 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. All patients received placebo during a 30-day run-in period followed by 2 months of active therapy and 1-day medication omission. ABPM was conducted on each period. 24 h antihypertensive coverage was assessed by trough:peak ratio (T/P) and smoothness index (SI) methods. Residual lowering of blood pressure after single-blind, 1 day medication omission was investigated as the SBP/DBP 48-h trough effect. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the mean SBP/DBP peak or trough effect. Individual T/P were not normally distributed and had very large variations explained by BP random- and activity-related fluctuations. Group T/P were 0.85 for Tra and 0.62 for Qui. The SI values were normally distributed and not statistically different between the two treatment groups. After dose omission, Qui was ineffective at 48-h trough while Tra retained a significant effect (SBP/DBP = -3.4/-4.3 mmHg) and this difference was even greater in ABPM-responders. Comparison of the trough:peak ratios and smoothness indexes of Tra and Qui failed to show any statistically significant difference on 24-h antihypertensive coverage. Nevertheless, residual lowering of blood pressure at 48-h trough suggests that Tra had a longer duration of action than Qui.