American journal of hypertension · 2011
Automated office blood pressure and 24-h ambulatory measurements are equally associated with left ventricular mass index.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Andreadis Emmanuel A, Agaliotis Gerasimos D, Angelopoulos Epameinondas T, Tsakanikas Athanasios P, Chaveles Ioannis A, Mousoulis George P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To determine whether automated office blood pressure (AOBP) readings are associated with left ventricular mass (LVM) index as closely as those of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and also to confirm that the values of the two methods are comparable in the appraisal of blood pressure in a European population referred for suspected hypertension.
METHODS: In a sample of 90 individuals with office hypertension, we compared AOBP to awake systolic ABP measurements (ABPM) values and their associations with LVM indices, expressed as LVM divided by body surface area (LVMI(BSA)) and by height(2.7) (LVMI(H)).
RESULTS: Mean awake systolic ABP was 136 ± 16 mm Hg and mean systolic AOBP was 140 ± 15 mm Hg (P < 0.002). Mean awake diastolic ABP was 87 ± 11 mm Hg and mean diastolic AOBP was 88 ± 12 mm Hg (P = 0.08). AOBP readings were as closely associated with LVMI(BSA) (r = 0.37) as were those of awake systolic blood pressure (SBP) (r = 0.37). The correlation between LVMI(H) and both mean awake systolic ABP and mean systolic AOBP was r = 0.37 (P < 0.001) and r = 0.34 (P = 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: High-quality AOBP readings and ABP measurements correlate equally well with LVM indices, further supporting the use of AOBP in the clinical setting. Moreover, readings from both techniques are comparable in the assessment of blood pressure.
METHODS: In a sample of 90 individuals with office hypertension, we compared AOBP to awake systolic ABP measurements (ABPM) values and their associations with LVM indices, expressed as LVM divided by body surface area (LVMI(BSA)) and by height(2.7) (LVMI(H)).
RESULTS: Mean awake systolic ABP was 136 ± 16 mm Hg and mean systolic AOBP was 140 ± 15 mm Hg (P < 0.002). Mean awake diastolic ABP was 87 ± 11 mm Hg and mean diastolic AOBP was 88 ± 12 mm Hg (P = 0.08). AOBP readings were as closely associated with LVMI(BSA) (r = 0.37) as were those of awake systolic blood pressure (SBP) (r = 0.37). The correlation between LVMI(H) and both mean awake systolic ABP and mean systolic AOBP was r = 0.37 (P < 0.001) and r = 0.34 (P = 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: High-quality AOBP readings and ABP measurements correlate equally well with LVM indices, further supporting the use of AOBP in the clinical setting. Moreover, readings from both techniques are comparable in the assessment of blood pressure.