4.2 Article

Long-term reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure is superior to office blood pressure in the very elderly

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 749-754

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2010.8

关键词

blood pressure reproducibility; ambulatory blood pressure; very elderly

资金

  1. NIH [RO1 AG022092, 5R01 DA24667-2]
  2. University of Connecticut Clinical Trials Unit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although it is known that reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is superior to office BP in middle-aged subjects, little is known in older age groups. Hence, we compared the long-term reproducibility of ambulatory and office BP readings in subjects over the age of 75 years. A cohort of 72 subjects 75-90 years of age (mean, 82 years at baseline) had repeat office and ambulatory BPs 2 years apart under similar conditions. On the same day, patients underwent office BP measurements by a semi-automated device and then by ambulatory BP monitoring. Awake and sleep periods were divided according to a diary kept by each patient. The agreement between studies was assessed using the standard deviation of the differences (SDD) and Bland-Altman plots. There were minimal mean changes in office, 24-h, and awake and sleep mean BP values between baseline and 2 years later. The SDDs between visits were lower for 24-h BP compared with the office BP (11.7/5.9 mm Hg versus 17.8/9.0 mm Hg, P<0.01). The SDD for 24-h BP was also lower than the SDDs for the awake and sleep BP (P<0.05). Nocturnal BPs defined by absolute values were more reproducible than categories of dippers and non-dippers. These data demonstrate that long-term reproducibility of 24-h BP is superior to office measurements for very elderly subjects. In a clinical trial involving this age group, far fewer subjects would be required if 24-h BP was the primary efficacy endpoint rather than the office BP. Journal of Human Hypertension (2010) 24, 749-754; doi:10.1038/jhh.2010.8; published online 4 March 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据