上海交通大学学报（医学版）

›› 2011, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (8): 1159-.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2011.08.025

• 论著（临床研究） • 上一篇    下一篇

两种仪器检测反射波增强指数和中心动脉收缩压的比较研究

樊旺祥, 李 燕, 李发红, 魏方菲, 单晓莉, 王继光   

  1. 上海交通大学 |医学院附属瑞金医院上海市高血压研究所, 上海 200025
  • 出版日期:2011-08-28 发布日期:2011-08-29
  • 通讯作者: 李 燕, 电子信箱: liyanshcn@yahoo.com。
  • 作者简介:樊旺祥（1983—）, 男, 硕士生；电子信箱: wangxiangfan@yahoo.com.cn。
  • 基金资助:

    上海市教委曙光学者计划（08SG20）

Comparison of augmentation index and central systolic blood pressure measured by two devices

FAN Wang-xiang, LI Yan, LI Fa-hong, WEI Fang-fei, SHAN Xiao-li, WANG Ji-guang   

  1. Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
  • Online:2011-08-28 Published:2011-08-29
  • Supported by:

    Shanghai Education Committee Foundation, 08SG20

PDF (PC)

2344

摘要：

目的 比较澳大利亚SphygmoCor系统及日本Omron HEM-9000AI脉波检测仪检测反射波增强指数（AI）及中心动脉收缩压（CSBP）的相关性和一致性。方法 对224名未进行降压治疗的受检者在同一天先后接受SphygmoCor和Omron HEM-9000AI检测仪检测，采用简单相关和Bland-Altman分析两种仪器检测的AI和CSBP的相关性和一致性；并采用多元逐步回归分析两种仪器检测AI和CSBP的影响因素。结果 Omron检测的AI及CSBP均高于SphygmoCor[（81.5±14.4）%和（77.6±16.2）%，（132.3±16.7） mmHg和（121.4±14.4）mmHg]，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001），两者的绝对差异分别为（3.9±11.0）%和（10.9±11.0）mmHg。两种仪器检测的CSBP和AI具有良好的相关性(r=0.75，P<0.001； r=0.76, P<0.001)。两种仪器检测的AI值均受年龄、性别、心率和平均动脉压影响（P<0.001），SphygmoCor的AI还受体质量指数的影响（P<0.05）。Omron检测的CSBP受性别和体质量指数的影响（P<0.05），与年龄无相关性（P>0.05）；而SphygmoCor检测的CSBP只受年龄因素影响（P<0.01）。结论 Omron HEM-9000AI和SphygmoCor系统在测量外周桡动脉AI上一致性较好，都较适合大规模的临床及流行病学研究；但两种仪器估算的CSBP绝对差别较大，不能相互替代使用。

关键词: 血压, 中心动脉, 反射波增强指数

Abstract:

Objective To explore the correlation and agreement of augmentation index (AI) and central systolic blood pressure (CSBP) measured by two devices (Australia SphygmoCor System and Japan Omron HEM-9000AI). Methods Two hundred and twenty-four subjects without antihypertensive medications had AI and CSBP measurements by both devices of SphygmoCor and Omron HEM-9000AI at the same day. The correlation and agreement of AI and CSBP between two devices were explored with simple correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plots. The influencing factors for measurements of AI and CSBP by both devices were investigated by multivariate stepwise regression analysis. Results AI and CSBP measured by Omron device were significantly higher than those measured by SphygmoCor [（81.5±14.4）%  vs （77.6±16.2）%，P<0.001;（132.3±16.7） mmHg vs （121.4±14.4）mmHg, P<0.001\], and absolute differences in AI and CSBP amounted to (3.9±11.0)% and (10.9±11.0) mmHg respectively.  AI and CSBP measured by two devices were closely correlated (r=0.75, P<0.001; r=0.76, P<0.001). AI detected by both devices were influenced by age, gender, heart rate and mean arterial pressure （P<0.001）, and AI detected by SphygmoCor was also influenced by body mass index （P<0.05）. CSBP detected by Omron device was influenced by gender and body mass index （P<0.05）, and was not influenced by age （P>0.05）.CSBP detected by SphygmoCor was only influenced by age （P<0.01）. Conclusion Omron HEM-9000AI and SphygmoCor System have good agreement in AI measurements. Both devices can be used in large scale clinical and epidemiological studies. However, there is a large disparity in CSBP estimations between two devices, and one CSBP measurement can not be used to replace the other.

Key words: blood pressure, central artery, augmentation index