高血压及休克患者有创与无创血压差异性的Meta分析

Differences analysis of invasive and non-invasive blood pressure in patients with hypertension and stroke： a Meta analysis

目的探讨高血压及休克患者血压监测的最佳方法。方法检索中英文医学期刊公开发表的关于高血压及休克患者有创与无创血压监测进行对比的文献，通过Revman5．3软件进行Meta分析。结果高血压组共纳入6篇文献，Meta分析结果显示，收缩压WMD=18．08，95％c，=13．75—2．40，无创血压（NBP）与有创血压（IBP）测得收缩压值不同，IBP法高于NBP法，经U检验，P〈0．0001，结果具有统计学意义。舒张压WMD=4．36，95％CI=-2．963～11．68，两种方法所测舒张压差异无统计学意义。休克组共纳入9篇随机对照试验文献，收缩压WMD=-13．79，95％CI：-16．7～-10．88，舒张压WMD=-8．67，95％CI=-10．53--6．81，无论收缩压或舒张压，NBP法测得值均高于IBP法，经U检验，P〈0．0001，结果具有统计学意义。结论有创血压更能及时动态的反映高血压与休克患者的血压变化情况，为临床救治工作赢得宝贵时间。

Objective To explore the best method of monitoring blood pressure in patients with hypertensive or shock. Methods According to the meta-analysis of the studies that compared records the of the invasive and noninvasive blood pressure of the hypertensive and shock patients in Chinese medical journals published, through the Revman5.1 for metaanalysis. Results The hypertension group had totally retrieved 6 articles, and Meta analysis showed the systolic pressure was WMD = 18.08,95% CI = 13.75-2.40, and NBP had difference with IBP in systolic pressure that the blood pressure of IBP method was higher than that of NBP; after U test, P 〈0. 000 1. The diastolic was WMD =4.36,95% CI = - 2. 963-11.68 and there was no statistically significant in difference of two methods to measure diastolic pressure. The stroke group was totally retrieved 9 randomized trails with diastolic blood pressure WMD = - 13.79, 95% CI = - 16.7- - I0.88 and systolic blood pressure WMD = - 8.67, 95% CI = - 10.53- - 6.81 ; both NBP of diastolic and systolic blood pressure were higher than that of IBP; after U test, P 〈 0. 000 1. Conclusions IBP can reflect the change of hypertension and stroke dynamically, so it can save value time of rescue in clinical.