论文部分内容阅读
目的：探讨计算降压谷峰比率的可靠方法。方法：３３例轻～中度原发性高血压患者，服安慰剂２周后，随机分入氨氯地平（ＡＭ）组（ｎ＝１６）与硝苯地平控释片（ＮＩ）组（ｎ＝１７）治疗４周。以诊室血压与动态血压监测评价降压效果，采用不同方法计算降压峰值、谷值、谷峰比率。结果：两组血压均显著降低。不同方法计算的峰值间差异较大。以２小时时段法及在２４小时内计算的２小时峰值较大，降压峰值及达峰时间的个体变异均较大。不同方法计算的谷值间无显著差异。ＡＭ组总体方法计算的收缩压、舒张压谷峰比率分别为６３％、５５％，个体方法计算的收缩压、舒张压谷峰比率分别为（３０±４２）％、（２５±４８）％；ＮＩ组总体方法计算的收缩压、舒张压谷峰比率分别为８５％、８１％，个体方法计算的收缩压、舒张压谷峰比率分别为（５５±３４）％、（５２±４２）％。结论：降压峰值及达峰时间的个体间变异均较大，在２４小时内计算２小时峰值是较可靠的方法，总体计算法高估谷峰比率，个体计算法较好。
Objective: To explore a reliable method for calculating the ratio of peak to peak pressure. Methods: Thirty-three patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension were randomly assigned to amlodipine (AM) group (n = 16) and nifedipine controlled-release group (NI) = 17) for 4 weeks. The clinic blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring evaluation of antihypertensive effect, using different methods to calculate the buck, peak, valley peak ratio. Results: Blood pressure was significantly lower in both groups. Different methods calculate the peak difference between the larger. The two-hour period method and the two-hour peak value calculated within 24 hours are larger, and the individual variation of the blood pressure peak value and peak time is larger. There was no significant difference between the valleys calculated by different methods. The total systolic and diastolic valleys of the AM group were 63% and 55%, respectively. The systolic and diastolic valleys of the systolic and diastolic valves were (30 ± 42)% and (25 ± 48)%, respectively. The overall systolic and diastolic peak-to-valley ratios calculated by the NI group were 85% and 81%, respectively. Systolic and diastolic peak-to-valley ratios were (55 ± 34)% and (52 ± 42)%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The variation of peak pressure and peak time between individuals are large. It is more reliable to calculate the peak value of 2 hours in 24 hours. The overall calculation method overestimates the peak-to-peak ratio, and the individual calculation method is better.