Objective: To investigate blood pressure variability of Elder hypertensives with type 2 diabetes and its relationship with cognition. Methods: A total of 143 elderly hypertensives were enrolled and divided into diabet...Objective: To investigate blood pressure variability of Elder hypertensives with type 2 diabetes and its relationship with cognition. Methods: A total of 143 elderly hypertensives were enrolled and divided into diabetic group (59 cases) and non-diabetic group (84 cases). The difference of general clinical characteristics, biochemical parameters, carotid ultrasound, a neuropsychological Scales and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (24hABPM) parameters between the two groups of subjects were compared. Then, the two groups (diabetic group and non-diabetic group) were further divided into (Mild cognitive dysfunction) subgroup (MMSE>26) and normal cognition subgroup (MMSE≤26), respectively. On the basis of MMSE scores, the difference of the parameters of ABPM between the two subgroups was analyzed. Results: Compared with the control group, 24hSBP, 24hPP, dSBP, dPP, nSBP, nPP, 24hSSD, dSSD, nSSD, 24hSCV, dSCV and nSCV were significantly higher in the diabetic group (p<0.05). However, cognition was lower in the diabetic group. No significant difference was found in the circadian pattern of blood pressure between the two groups. 24hSSD, dSSD, nSSD, 24hSCV, dSCV, nSCV were significantly higher in the MCI subgroup than normal cognition subgroup in both diabetic and non-diabetic groups(p<0.05), and they were negatively associated with scores of MMSE, the correlation coefficient were -0.235,-0.246,-0.341,-0.158,-0.222,-0.238 (0.001≤P<0.05). Conclusion: The study showed that in the elderly with hypertension, the mean systolic blood pressure and blood pressure variability were both higher in the diabetic group, and the cognition was lower instead. Whether or not with diabetes, blood pressure variability was always higher in the MCI subgroup. Blood pressure variability increased in patients with diabetes, and was associated with cognitive decline.展开更多
目的 探讨原发性高血压（EH）患者血压昼夜规律及血压波动程度即变异性的临床意义.方法 回顾分析65例EH患者24 h动态血压（24 h ABPM）监测报告.将65例EH患者分为两组：一组为高血压伴左心室肥大（LVH）30例,另一组为高血压不伴左心室肥...目的 探讨原发性高血压（EH）患者血压昼夜规律及血压波动程度即变异性的临床意义.方法 回顾分析65例EH患者24 h动态血压（24 h ABPM）监测报告.将65例EH患者分为两组：一组为高血压伴左心室肥大（LVH）30例,另一组为高血压不伴左心室肥大35例.选择同期健康体检者30名为正常血压对照组.对下列参数进行分析：①24 h平均收缩压（24 h SBP）与舒张压（24 h DBP）;②白昼平均收缩压（dSBP）与舒张压（dDBP）;③夜间平均收缩压（nSBP）与舒张压（nDBP）;④24 h收缩压标准差（24 h SSD）与舒张压标准差（24 h DSD）;⑤白昼收缩压标准差（dSSD）与舒张压标准差（dDSD）;⑥夜间收缩压标准差（nSSD）和舒张压标准差（nDSD）;⑦夜间/白昼平均收缩压比值（nSBP/dSBP）与舒张压比值（nDBP/dDBP）.结果 高血压伴LVH组与正常对照组或高血压无LVH组比较,24 h各时间段的血压均值及血压变异性差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）,血压昼夜（清醒/睡眠）规律性不明显,nSBP/dSBP比值显著高于对照组（P＜0.01）.高血压无LVH组与正常对照组比较,血压均值差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）,血压大多有较明显昼夜（清醒/睡眠）变化规律,血压变异性比较除白昼收缩压变异性有明显差异外,其余差异无统计学意义.结论 高血压不合并靶器官损害时,血压的变异性不显著,有明显昼夜规律性;高血压合并靶器官损害时,血压的变异性增大,无明显昼夜规律性,nSBP/dSBP比值明显增高.利用这些指标可评估高血压患者是否有靶器官损害,以便更有效地控制血压,减少并发症.展开更多
文摘Objective: To investigate blood pressure variability of Elder hypertensives with type 2 diabetes and its relationship with cognition. Methods: A total of 143 elderly hypertensives were enrolled and divided into diabetic group (59 cases) and non-diabetic group (84 cases). The difference of general clinical characteristics, biochemical parameters, carotid ultrasound, a neuropsychological Scales and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (24hABPM) parameters between the two groups of subjects were compared. Then, the two groups (diabetic group and non-diabetic group) were further divided into (Mild cognitive dysfunction) subgroup (MMSE>26) and normal cognition subgroup (MMSE≤26), respectively. On the basis of MMSE scores, the difference of the parameters of ABPM between the two subgroups was analyzed. Results: Compared with the control group, 24hSBP, 24hPP, dSBP, dPP, nSBP, nPP, 24hSSD, dSSD, nSSD, 24hSCV, dSCV and nSCV were significantly higher in the diabetic group (p<0.05). However, cognition was lower in the diabetic group. No significant difference was found in the circadian pattern of blood pressure between the two groups. 24hSSD, dSSD, nSSD, 24hSCV, dSCV, nSCV were significantly higher in the MCI subgroup than normal cognition subgroup in both diabetic and non-diabetic groups(p<0.05), and they were negatively associated with scores of MMSE, the correlation coefficient were -0.235,-0.246,-0.341,-0.158,-0.222,-0.238 (0.001≤P<0.05). Conclusion: The study showed that in the elderly with hypertension, the mean systolic blood pressure and blood pressure variability were both higher in the diabetic group, and the cognition was lower instead. Whether or not with diabetes, blood pressure variability was always higher in the MCI subgroup. Blood pressure variability increased in patients with diabetes, and was associated with cognitive decline.
文摘目的 探讨原发性高血压（EH）患者血压昼夜规律及血压波动程度即变异性的临床意义.方法 回顾分析65例EH患者24 h动态血压（24 h ABPM）监测报告.将65例EH患者分为两组：一组为高血压伴左心室肥大（LVH）30例,另一组为高血压不伴左心室肥大35例.选择同期健康体检者30名为正常血压对照组.对下列参数进行分析：①24 h平均收缩压（24 h SBP）与舒张压（24 h DBP）;②白昼平均收缩压（dSBP）与舒张压（dDBP）;③夜间平均收缩压（nSBP）与舒张压（nDBP）;④24 h收缩压标准差（24 h SSD）与舒张压标准差（24 h DSD）;⑤白昼收缩压标准差（dSSD）与舒张压标准差（dDSD）;⑥夜间收缩压标准差（nSSD）和舒张压标准差（nDSD）;⑦夜间/白昼平均收缩压比值（nSBP/dSBP）与舒张压比值（nDBP/dDBP）.结果 高血压伴LVH组与正常对照组或高血压无LVH组比较,24 h各时间段的血压均值及血压变异性差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）,血压昼夜（清醒/睡眠）规律性不明显,nSBP/dSBP比值显著高于对照组（P＜0.01）.高血压无LVH组与正常对照组比较,血压均值差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）,血压大多有较明显昼夜（清醒/睡眠）变化规律,血压变异性比较除白昼收缩压变异性有明显差异外,其余差异无统计学意义.结论 高血压不合并靶器官损害时,血压的变异性不显著,有明显昼夜规律性;高血压合并靶器官损害时,血压的变异性增大,无明显昼夜规律性,nSBP/dSBP比值明显增高.利用这些指标可评估高血压患者是否有靶器官损害,以便更有效地控制血压,减少并发症.
