摘要
目的:探讨心房颤动(Af)患者用Korotkoff音法测量血压与动脉有创测量血压之间的差异性,并对Korotkoff音法的局限性及方法改良进行探讨。方法:用传统的Korotkoff音法及动脉有创法对95例疑诊冠心病伴有Af的患者在行冠状动脉造影时进行血压测定,根据脉搏短绌程度对病例进行分组。同时,对窦性心律患者中接受冠状动脉造影的50例患者进行有创测压和Korotkoff音法测压。结果:对于伴Af患者,传统Korotkoff 音法测量出的收缩压及舒张压均低于有创测量的动脉血压(均P<0.01),Af时明显的脉搏短绌可使误差明显增大。而窦性心律患者Korotkoff音法测得的血压水平虽然低于有创压,但两者之间差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05)。结论:传统Korotkoff音法不适于Af,尤其是快心室率的Af患者的血压测量,测出的血压不能代表Af时的血压水平,对于Af患者应该对测量方法进行适当的调整,建立新的测量方法。
Objective： To investigate the difference between the two methods （Korotkoff sound method and vulnerarious method） in atrial fibrillation patients, and discuss the limitation of Korotkoff sound method. Method： Measuring the blood pressure with Korotkoff sound method and vulnerarious method in 82 patients with atrial fibrillation and 40 patients with sinus rhythm accepting coronary angiography, and separating the patients with atrial fibrillation into some groups according to the degree of pulse deficit. Result： The systolic blood pressure（SBP） and diastolic blood pressure（DBP） are both lower with Korotkoff sound method than with vulnerarious method （ P 〈0.01）, and the error are increased with the increasing of degree of pulse deficit. But the differences between the blood pressure level, in patients with sinus rhythm, measured by Korotkoff sound method and vulnerarious method have no statistical significance （ P 〉0.05）. Conclusion：It＇s not suitable to measure blood pressure with Korotkoff sound method in atrial fibrillation patients,especially in the patients with higher heart rate. And the method should be adjusted to meet the demand of measuring blood pressure correctly.
出处
《临床心血管病杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2005年第9期530-531,共2页
Journal of Clinical Cardiology
