当前位置: X-MOL 学术Hypertension › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Effects of Intensive Versus Standard Office-Based Hypertension Treatment Strategy on White-Coat Effect and Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension
Hypertension ( IF 8.3 ) Pub Date : 2020-10-01 , DOI: 10.1161/hypertensionaha.120.15300
Lama Ghazi 1 , Laura P Cohen 2 , Paul Muntner 3 , Daichi Shimbo 2 , Paul E Drawz 1
Affiliation  

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Guidelines recommend using out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurements to confirm the diagnoses of hypertension and in the titration of antihypertensive medication. The prevalence of out-of-office BP phenotypes for an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <140/90 mm Hg has been reported. However, the prevalence of these phenotypes when targeting an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <120/80 is unknown. The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Ambulatory BP Ancillary study evaluated out-of-office BP using ambulatory BP monitoring in 897 participants 27 months after randomization to intensive versus standard BP targets (office systolic BP <120 versus <140 mm Hg). We used office and daytime BP to assess the proportion of participants with white-coat effect (standard target: office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP ≥120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP <120/80 mm Hg) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (standard target: office BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP <120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥120/80 mm Hg) in each treatment arm. The prevalence of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension was 9% and 34%, in both treatment groups. Among participants with uncontrolled office BP, white-coat effect was present in 20% and 23% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. Among participants with controlled office BP, masked uncontrolled hypertension was present in 62% and 56% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. In conclusion, a more intensive BP target resulted in a similar proportion of patients with white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension compared with a standard target.

中文翻译:

强化与标准门诊高血压治疗策略对白大衣效应和隐匿性未控制高血压的影响

文本中提供了补充数字内容。指南建议使用诊室外血压 (BP) 测量来确认高血压的诊断和抗高血压药物的滴定。据报道,诊室收缩压/舒张压目标 <140/90 mm Hg 的诊室外血压表型普遍存在。然而,当以诊室收缩压/舒张压目标 <120/80 为目标时,这些表型的患病率尚不清楚。SPRINT(收缩压干预试验)动态血压辅助研究使用动态血压监测对 897 名参与者进行了动态血压监测,在随机分组后 27 个月评估了强化血压目标与标准血压目标(诊室收缩压 <120 与 <140 mm Hg)。我们使用诊室和日间血压来评估具有白大衣效应的参与者的比例(标准目标:诊室 BP ≥140/90 mm Hg 和白天 BP <135/85 mm Hg 与强化目标:诊室 BP ≥120/80 mm Hg和白天 BP <120/80 mm Hg)和未控制的隐匿性高血压(标准目标:诊室 BP <140/90 mm Hg 和白天 BP ≥135/85 mm Hg 对比强化目标:诊室 BP <120/80 mm Hg 和白天 BP ≥120/80 mm Hg)在每个治疗组。在两个治疗组中,白大衣效应和未控制的隐匿性高血压的患病率分别为 9% 和 34%。在办公室血压不受控制的参与者中,强化组和标准组分别有 20% 和 23% 存在白大衣效应。在控制办公室血压的参与者中,强化组和标准组分别有 62% 和 56% 存在隐匿性未控制的高血压。总之,与标准目标相比,更强化的 BP 目标导致具有白大衣效应和未控制高血压的患者比例相似。
更新日期:2020-10-01
down
wechat
bug