Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between peripheral plasma stem cell factor (SCF)/c-kit levels and the types of dipper and non-dipper hypertension in hypertensive patients.Methods Th...Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between peripheral plasma stem cell factor (SCF)/c-kit levels and the types of dipper and non-dipper hypertension in hypertensive patients.Methods This cross-sectional study included newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) between January 2009 and 2012 in Jiangning city. Patients were divided into the dipper group and the non-dipper group according to ABPM measurements. The levels of SCF and its receptor c-kit, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) in peripheral blood were measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The serum levels of glucose and lipid were examined as well. The levels of SCF/c-kit were compared between the dippers and the non-dippers; and their correlation with 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (MSBP), 24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure (MDBP), TNF-αand IL-6 were investigated using linear regression analyses statistically.Results A total of 247 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension were recruited into the study, including 116 non-dippers and 131 dippers. The levels of peripheral plasma SCF were higher in non-dipper group (907.1±52.7 ng/L vs. 778.7±44.6 ng/L; t=2.837, P<0.01), and the levels of c-kit were higher in non-dipper group too (13.2±1.7 μg/L vs 9.57±1.4 μg/L; t=2.831, P<0.01). Linear regression analysis revealed that SCF/ckit levels were significantly positively correlated with MSBP, MDBP, plasma TNF-α, and IL-6 levels (all P<0.01).Conclusions Peripheral plasma SCF/c-kit levels are higher in patients with non-dipper hypertension than those with dipper one, and significantly correlate with 24-hour MSBP, 24-hour MDBP, serum TNF-α and IL-6 levels.展开更多
目的分析原发性高血压患者动态动脉硬化指数(AASI)的相关影响因素,研究AASI对靶器官的损害作用及其临床意义。方法行24 h动态血压(ABPM)监测并计算AASI的原发性高血压患者330例,依据AASI结果分为低AASI组(n=167)及高AASI组(n=163),记录...目的分析原发性高血压患者动态动脉硬化指数(AASI)的相关影响因素,研究AASI对靶器官的损害作用及其临床意义。方法行24 h动态血压(ABPM)监测并计算AASI的原发性高血压患者330例,依据AASI结果分为低AASI组(n=167)及高AASI组(n=163),记录2组患者的一般临床资料、动态血压相关指标、冠状动脉造影结果、左室质量指数(LVMI),估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)及踝臂指数(ABI)。结果高AASI组的年龄(岁:64.91±9.70vs 59.12±10.00)、合并糖尿病比例(33.8%vs 14.8%)、非杓型血压比例(65.6%vs 43.7%)、24 h脉压(mmHg:65.27±11.31 vs 56.06±10.51)、24 h舒张压标准差(mmHg:9.64±2.47 vs 8.31±2.31)、冠状动脉病变支数(1.8±1.1 vs 1.3±1.1)、LVMI(g/m2:125.74±29.65 vs 107.69±23.23)、外周血管病变(27.3%vs 16.4%)高于低AASI组;高AASI组eGFR水平小于低AASI组[mL/(min·1.73 m2):85.31±20.31 vs 99.67±17.76]。相关分析显示AASI与冠脉病变数(r=0.235)、LVMI(r=0.168)、外周血管病变(r=0.167)呈正相关,与eGFR(r=-0.187)呈负相关;多元线性回归分析显示年龄、糖尿病、PP、DB-PSD、非杓型血压是AASI的影响因素。结论 AASI受年龄、糖尿病、24 h脉压、血压变异性及血压杓型的影响,其升高和原发性高血压患者出现心、肾及外周血管疾病有关,检测AASI有助于临床医生评估高血压患者并发症的发生和发展。展开更多
目的探讨高血压病患者血糖水平与血压变异性之间的关系。方法回顾性分析2015年5月—2016年10月在我院心血管内科住院的高血压病患者125例,根据患者是否合并糖尿病,分为高血压合并糖尿病组(59例)和高血压未合并糖尿病组(66例),对2组血压...目的探讨高血压病患者血糖水平与血压变异性之间的关系。方法回顾性分析2015年5月—2016年10月在我院心血管内科住院的高血压病患者125例,根据患者是否合并糖尿病,分为高血压合并糖尿病组(59例)和高血压未合并糖尿病组(66例),对2组血压水平、血压变异性及与血糖水平之间的关系进行分析。结果 (1)高血压合并糖尿病组高脂血症史,低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平低于高血压未合并糖尿病组,糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、24 h舒张压变异系数(24 h DBPCV)、白天收缩压变异系数(dSBPCV)和白天舒张压变异系数(dDBPCV)高于高血压未合并糖尿病组(P<0.05)。(2)对高血压病是否合并糖尿病与血压变异性各指标之间的Spearman相关分析显示,高血压病合并糖尿病与24 h DBPCV、dSBPCV和dDBPCV呈正相关。(3)HbA1c诊断高血压病患者非杓型血压的ROC曲线显示,HbA1c的cut-off值为5.85%,曲线下面积为0.692(P<0.05),敏感度为71.1%,特异度为63.7%。结论高血压伴血糖升高患者血压变异性增加,HbA1c水平对高血压病患者非杓型血压诊断有着潜在的临床价值。展开更多
目的探讨夜间服用长效钙拮抗剂联合抗焦虑治疗对非杓型高血压合并焦虑症患者的降压效果。方法选取2011年6月—2014年6月在汕头市中心医院就诊的非杓型高血压合并焦虑症患者156例。采用随机数字表法,将156例患者分为A、B、C 3组,每组52例...目的探讨夜间服用长效钙拮抗剂联合抗焦虑治疗对非杓型高血压合并焦虑症患者的降压效果。方法选取2011年6月—2014年6月在汕头市中心医院就诊的非杓型高血压合并焦虑症患者156例。采用随机数字表法,将156例患者分为A、B、C 3组,每组52例。A组同时口服氨氯地平和黛力新;B组仅口服氨氯地平;C组仅口服黛力新。服药4周后行动态血压监测,评价患者血压及其形态变化。结果 (1)治疗前,3组24 h平均收缩压(24 h SBP)、白天平均收缩压(d SBP)、夜间平均收缩压(n SBP)、24 h平均舒张压(24 h DBP)、白天平均舒张压(d DBP)、夜间平均舒张压(n DBP)比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后,3组24 h SBP、d SBP、n SBP、24 h DBP、d DBP、n DBP比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);且B、C组与A组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,A、B组24 h SBP、d SBP、n SBP、24 h DBP、d DBP、n DBP与治疗前比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(2)治疗后,A、B、C组患者恢复杓型高血压的比例分别为76.9%(40/52)、40.4%(21/52)、5.8%(3/52),3组恢复杓型高血压比例比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=24.60,P<0.05);且A组与B组(χ2=14.31,P<0.05)、A组与C组(χ2=54.28,P<0.05)、B组与C组(χ2=17.40,P<0.05)比较,差异均有统计学意义。(3)3组疗效比较,差异有统计学意义(H=41.58,P<0.05);且A组与B组(H=7.88,P<0.05)、A组与C组(H=16.34,P<0.05)、B组与C组(H=10.72,P<0.05)比较,差异均有统计学意义。结论与夜间单独服用长效钙拮抗剂治疗和单独抗焦虑治疗相比,联合治疗对非杓型高血压合并焦虑症患者的降压效果更好。展开更多
文摘Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between peripheral plasma stem cell factor (SCF)/c-kit levels and the types of dipper and non-dipper hypertension in hypertensive patients.Methods This cross-sectional study included newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) between January 2009 and 2012 in Jiangning city. Patients were divided into the dipper group and the non-dipper group according to ABPM measurements. The levels of SCF and its receptor c-kit, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) in peripheral blood were measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The serum levels of glucose and lipid were examined as well. The levels of SCF/c-kit were compared between the dippers and the non-dippers; and their correlation with 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (MSBP), 24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure (MDBP), TNF-αand IL-6 were investigated using linear regression analyses statistically.Results A total of 247 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension were recruited into the study, including 116 non-dippers and 131 dippers. The levels of peripheral plasma SCF were higher in non-dipper group (907.1±52.7 ng/L vs. 778.7±44.6 ng/L; t=2.837, P<0.01), and the levels of c-kit were higher in non-dipper group too (13.2±1.7 μg/L vs 9.57±1.4 μg/L; t=2.831, P<0.01). Linear regression analysis revealed that SCF/ckit levels were significantly positively correlated with MSBP, MDBP, plasma TNF-α, and IL-6 levels (all P<0.01).Conclusions Peripheral plasma SCF/c-kit levels are higher in patients with non-dipper hypertension than those with dipper one, and significantly correlate with 24-hour MSBP, 24-hour MDBP, serum TNF-α and IL-6 levels.
文摘目的分析原发性高血压患者动态动脉硬化指数(AASI)的相关影响因素,研究AASI对靶器官的损害作用及其临床意义。方法行24 h动态血压(ABPM)监测并计算AASI的原发性高血压患者330例,依据AASI结果分为低AASI组(n=167)及高AASI组(n=163),记录2组患者的一般临床资料、动态血压相关指标、冠状动脉造影结果、左室质量指数(LVMI),估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)及踝臂指数(ABI)。结果高AASI组的年龄(岁:64.91±9.70vs 59.12±10.00)、合并糖尿病比例(33.8%vs 14.8%)、非杓型血压比例(65.6%vs 43.7%)、24 h脉压(mmHg:65.27±11.31 vs 56.06±10.51)、24 h舒张压标准差(mmHg:9.64±2.47 vs 8.31±2.31)、冠状动脉病变支数(1.8±1.1 vs 1.3±1.1)、LVMI(g/m2:125.74±29.65 vs 107.69±23.23)、外周血管病变(27.3%vs 16.4%)高于低AASI组;高AASI组eGFR水平小于低AASI组[mL/(min·1.73 m2):85.31±20.31 vs 99.67±17.76]。相关分析显示AASI与冠脉病变数(r=0.235)、LVMI(r=0.168)、外周血管病变(r=0.167)呈正相关,与eGFR(r=-0.187)呈负相关;多元线性回归分析显示年龄、糖尿病、PP、DB-PSD、非杓型血压是AASI的影响因素。结论 AASI受年龄、糖尿病、24 h脉压、血压变异性及血压杓型的影响,其升高和原发性高血压患者出现心、肾及外周血管疾病有关,检测AASI有助于临床医生评估高血压患者并发症的发生和发展。
文摘目的探讨高血压病患者血糖水平与血压变异性之间的关系。方法回顾性分析2015年5月—2016年10月在我院心血管内科住院的高血压病患者125例,根据患者是否合并糖尿病,分为高血压合并糖尿病组(59例)和高血压未合并糖尿病组(66例),对2组血压水平、血压变异性及与血糖水平之间的关系进行分析。结果 (1)高血压合并糖尿病组高脂血症史,低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平低于高血压未合并糖尿病组,糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、24 h舒张压变异系数(24 h DBPCV)、白天收缩压变异系数(dSBPCV)和白天舒张压变异系数(dDBPCV)高于高血压未合并糖尿病组(P<0.05)。(2)对高血压病是否合并糖尿病与血压变异性各指标之间的Spearman相关分析显示,高血压病合并糖尿病与24 h DBPCV、dSBPCV和dDBPCV呈正相关。(3)HbA1c诊断高血压病患者非杓型血压的ROC曲线显示,HbA1c的cut-off值为5.85%,曲线下面积为0.692(P<0.05),敏感度为71.1%,特异度为63.7%。结论高血压伴血糖升高患者血压变异性增加,HbA1c水平对高血压病患者非杓型血压诊断有着潜在的临床价值。
文摘目的探讨夜间服用长效钙拮抗剂联合抗焦虑治疗对非杓型高血压合并焦虑症患者的降压效果。方法选取2011年6月—2014年6月在汕头市中心医院就诊的非杓型高血压合并焦虑症患者156例。采用随机数字表法,将156例患者分为A、B、C 3组,每组52例。A组同时口服氨氯地平和黛力新;B组仅口服氨氯地平;C组仅口服黛力新。服药4周后行动态血压监测,评价患者血压及其形态变化。结果 (1)治疗前,3组24 h平均收缩压(24 h SBP)、白天平均收缩压(d SBP)、夜间平均收缩压(n SBP)、24 h平均舒张压(24 h DBP)、白天平均舒张压(d DBP)、夜间平均舒张压(n DBP)比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后,3组24 h SBP、d SBP、n SBP、24 h DBP、d DBP、n DBP比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);且B、C组与A组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,A、B组24 h SBP、d SBP、n SBP、24 h DBP、d DBP、n DBP与治疗前比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(2)治疗后,A、B、C组患者恢复杓型高血压的比例分别为76.9%(40/52)、40.4%(21/52)、5.8%(3/52),3组恢复杓型高血压比例比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=24.60,P<0.05);且A组与B组(χ2=14.31,P<0.05)、A组与C组(χ2=54.28,P<0.05)、B组与C组(χ2=17.40,P<0.05)比较,差异均有统计学意义。(3)3组疗效比较,差异有统计学意义(H=41.58,P<0.05);且A组与B组(H=7.88,P<0.05)、A组与C组(H=16.34,P<0.05)、B组与C组(H=10.72,P<0.05)比较,差异均有统计学意义。结论与夜间单独服用长效钙拮抗剂治疗和单独抗焦虑治疗相比,联合治疗对非杓型高血压合并焦虑症患者的降压效果更好。
