比较两种无创性测量中心动脉压仪器测值的一致性  

Comparison of the consistency in measurement of central aortic pressure by two non-invasive devices

作　　者：彭猛[1] 蒋雄京[1] 关婷[1] 马文君[1] 董徽[1] 吉薇[1] 吴海英[1] 惠汝太 

机构地区：[1]北京协和医学院,中国医学科学院,阜外心血管病医院心内科,北京100037

出　　处：《中华高血压杂志》2012年第11期1048-1052,共5页Chinese Journal of Hypertension

摘　　要：目的比较两种无创性测量中心动脉压(CBP)仪器(欧姆龙HEM9000AI与SphygmoCor)测值的一致性。方法入选2011-08-09在北京阜外心血管病医院住院的冠状动脉性心脏病(冠心病)患者43例,年龄40～80(60.5±9.4)岁,其中男性32名(74.4%),对同一患者分别使用欧姆龙HEM9000AI与SphygmoCor测量CBP。采用Pearson相关分析、配对t检验和Bland-Altman评价两种仪器所测CBP的相关及一致性。结果 Pearson相关分析显示,两种仪器测量的中心动脉收缩压(cSBP)均与外周收缩压呈正相关(r=0.942、0.971,均P<0.01);两种仪器测量的cSBP(r=0.972)、桡动脉反射波增强指数(AI,r=0.663)呈正相关(均P<0.01)。配对t检验显示,两种仪器测量的cSBP[(119.0±25.1)比(106.1±21.2)mmHg,P<0.01]及AI[(73.5±15.4)%比(67.1±22.5)%,P=0.03]差异有统计学意义。Bland-Altman分析显示,两种仪器测量的cSBP及AI相差(13.7±6.7)mmHg和(6.3±16.8)%,在一致性界限范围内,绝对值最大为23.5mmHg和36.5%,一致性欠佳。结论两种仪器无创测量的cSBP及AI相关性均较好,一致性均欠佳,临床上互相替代使用值得质疑。Objective This study was to compare the consistency in the measurement of central blood pressure （CBP） by two non-invasive devices （OmrowHEM9000AI and SphygmoCor）. Methods From Aug. 2010 to Sep. 2010 a totalof 43 coronary artery disease inpatients[aged 40-80（60.5±9.4） year old, （male 32, 74.4%）] were enrolled. The CBPs of each patient were recorded by Omron-HEM9000AI and SphygmoCor respectively. Pearson correlation analysis, paired t-test, and Bland-Ahman plot were used to evaluate the correlation and consistency in CBP measurements by two devices. Results Pearson correlation analysis showed that central systolic blood pres- sures （cSBP） measured by two devices were positively correlated with the peripheral systolic blood pressures （r= 0. 942 and 0. 971, both P〈0.01 ）. There were positive correlations in cSBP （r= 0. 972, P〈0.01） and radial ar tery augmentation index （AI, r = 0. 663, P〈0.01 ） between the measurements from each device. Paired t-test showed that there were statistically significant differences between devices in cSBP [（119.0±25. 1） vs （106.1± 21.2） mm Hg, P〈0.01] and AI [{73.5±15.4） % vs （67.1±22.5）%, P=0.03-1. Bland-Ahman plot suggested that the differences of the eSBP and AI between devices were {13.3±6.68） mm Hg and （6.3±16.8）% respective- ly. Within the limit of the consistency, the maximum moduli were 23.5 mm Hg and 36.5% respectively, which in- dicated poor consistency. Conclusion The correlations in cSBP and AI were significant between two devices, while the consistencies were poor. It is unclear that these two devices can be used to measure CBP interchangeably in the clinical setting.

关 键 词：中心动脉压 无创性测量 相关性 一致性 

分 类 号：R318.6[医药卫生—生物医学工程]