增强指数评估动脉僵硬度不如脉搏波速度敏感  

The Sensitivity of Augmentation Index and Pulse Way Velocity in Evaluation of Aortic Stiffness in Dialysis Patients

作　　者：曾靖[1] 程李涛[1] 唐利军[1] 顾玥[1] 陈伯钧[1] 汪涛[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学第三医院肾内科

出　　处：《中国动脉硬化杂志》2008年第1期43-46,共4页Chinese Journal of Arteriosclerosis

基　　金：教育部长江学者奖励计划;教育部教育振兴行动计划专项基金(985工程);院内临床重点项目

摘　　要：目的探讨脉搏波速度和增强指数在评估动脉僵硬度方面的敏感性有无差别。方法选取73名持续性非卧床腹膜透析患者为研究对象,测量踝臂指数,根据踝臂指数水平分为踝臂指数≤0.9组和踝臂指数>0.9组。通过外周脉压、中心增强压力、增强指数、中心脉压及颈—股脉搏波速度评估大动脉僵硬度。结果踝臂指数≤0.9组颈—股脉搏波速度明显大于踝臂指数>0.9组(P<0.001),但增强指数在两组之间无明显差别。相关分析显示,颈—股脉搏波速度和踝臂指数存在很好的相关性(P<0.001),增强指数与踝臂指数不存在相关。结论增强指数在评估动脉僵硬度方面没有脉搏波速度敏感,临床上使用增强指数评估动脉僵硬度时需要谨慎。Aim To study the sensitivity of augmentation index （AI） and pulse way velocity （PWV） in evaluation of aortic stiffness. Methods Seventy-three continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis （CAPD） patients in a single center were included in the present study. Ankle-brachial pressure index （ABI） was measured. The patients were classified into ABI≤0.9 group and ABI 〉 0.9 group. Aortic stiffness was assessed by brachial pulse pressure （ PP）, central augmentation pressure （ C- AP）, M, central PP （C-PP） and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity （CF-PWV）. Results The CF-PWV in ABI≤0.9 group was higher than that of ABI 〉 0.9 group. However, there was no difference in M between the two groups. CF-PWV was positively correlated with ABI （ P 〈 0. 001 ）, but M was not correlated with ABI. Conclusions M was not as sensitive as PWV in evaluating aortic stiffness. Therefore, we should be cautious in utilizing AI to evaluate aortic stiffness.

关 键 词：内科学 动脉僵硬度 增强指数 踝臂指数 脉搏波速度 

分 类 号：R5[医药卫生—内科学]