摘要
目的探讨不同降压水平对血压控制正常患者动脉僵硬度的影响。方法应用脉搏波传导速度自动测量系统测定肱踝脉搏波传导速度(baPWV),分别对血压控制正常的高血压患者134例进行测定,其中根据降压水平不同分为:(1)A1组54例,收缩压<120mmHg和舒张压<80mmHg;(2)A2组32例,收缩压120-129mmHg和舒张压80-84mmHg;(3)A3组48例,收缩压130-139mmHg和舒张压85-89mmHg。并选取同期门诊健康体检者99例为对照组。结果 A1、A2、A3三组间比较,baPWV差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01);血压控制正常的高血压组与对照组比较,baPWV差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论降压可明显改善高血压患者动脉僵硬度,深度降压对血压控制正常的高血压病患者动脉僵硬度改善更明显;经过3个月短期的正规治疗,尚不能使增加的动脉僵硬度完全逆转,需要长期的观察和治疗。
Objective To explore effects of different anti-hypertension level on hypertension patients with ambulatory arterial stiffness which blood pressure were controlled in normal range.Methods Apply pulse wave velocity automatic measuring system of pulse wave transmission velocity to inspect brachial-ankle artery pulse wave velocity（baPWV）,134 patients with essential hypertension were tested.Based on level of anti-hypertension,those patients were randomly divided into 3 groups：group A1,54 patients presenting systolic pressure less than 120 mmHg and diastolic pressure less than 80mmHg;group A2,32 patients presenting systolic pressure 120-129 mmHg and diastolic pressure 80-84mmHg;and group A3,48 patients presenting systolic pressure 130-139 mmHg and diastolic pressure 85-89 mmHg.99 healthy out-patients were taken as a control group.Results Difference in baPWV between any two out of three groups（A1,A2 and A3） presented statistical significance（P 0.01）,and difference in baPWV between hypertension patients with normal blood pressure and control group also presents significant difference（P 0.01）.Conclusion For those patients with hypertension,the lower blood pressure leads the more improvements of ambulatory arterial stiffness.After 3 months therapy,ambulatory arterial stiffness has not been reversed completely;therefore a long term inspection and therapy are still needed.
出处
《宁夏医学杂志》
CAS
2010年第7期610-611,共2页
Ningxia Medical Journal
关键词
原发性高血压
降压
脉搏波传导速度
动脉僵硬度
Essential hypertension
Anti-hypertension
Pulse wave transmission velocity
Ambulatory arterial stiffness
