| 姬永浩,艾红,顿国亮,谭深,刘建学.超声评价原发性高血压不同危险性分层颈动脉弹性[J].中国医学影像技术,2015,31(10):1532~1535 |
| 超声评价原发性高血压不同危险性分层颈动脉弹性 |
| Ultrasound in evaluation of carotid artery elasticity in primary hypertension patient with different risk stratification |
| 投稿时间：2014-12-25 修订日期：2015-07-20 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.1003-3289.2015.10.020 |
| 中文关键词: 高血压 颈动脉 危险性分层 弹性成像技术 |
| 英文关键词:Hypertension Carotid arteries Risk stratification Elasticity imaging techniques |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2066 |
| 全文下载次数: 856 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 探讨内-中膜厚度定量检测(QIMT)及动脉僵硬度定量检测(QAS)技术评价不同危险性分层原发性高血压患者颈动脉弹性的临床价值。方法 将255例原发性高血压患者(高血压组)分为低危亚组31例,中危亚组48例,高危亚组67例,很高危亚组109例;另选70名健康成人作为正常对照组。应用QIMT软件测量颈总动脉内-中膜厚度(IMT),QAS软件测量颈总动脉弹性指标,包括僵硬度系数(α、β)、动脉扩张性系数(DC)、顺应性系数(CC)、脉搏波传导速度(PWV),并进行统计学分析。结果 高血压组颈总动脉IMT、α、β及PWV大于对照组,DC及CC较对照组减小,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.001)。原发性高血压患者IMT、α、β及PWV均随危险性分层升高而增大,DC及CC随危险性分层升高而减小(P均<0.001)。两两比较结果显示,除低危、中危两亚组间α及β差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)外,其余各指标在不同危险性分层亚组间差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。所有受试者PWV均与α、β、DC及CC相关(r=0.859、0.816、－0.703、－0.676),α均与β、DC及CC相关(r=0.976、－0.595、－0.478),β均与DC、CC相关(r=－0.579、－0.445),DC与CC相关(r=0.741,P均<0.001)。IMT与PWV、α及β呈正相关(r=0.493、0.404、0.393),与DC、CC呈负相关(r=－0.516、－0.512,P均<0.001)。结论 原发性高血压患者颈动脉结构、弹性指标与危险性分层相关,QIMT及QAS技术可为高血压患者的危险性分层提供直接依据。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To explore the clinical value of carotid artery elasticity in patients with different risk stratification of primary hypertension using quantitative intima-media thickness (QIMT) and quantitative artery stiffness (QAS). Methods Totally 255 patients with primary hypertensive patients (hypertension group) were divided into low risk (n=31), medium risk (n=48), high risk (n=67) and extreme high risk subgroups (n=109). And 70 healthy adults were enrolled as control group. The carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) was measured with QIMT software and the carotid artery elastic parameters including stiffness coefficient (α and β), distensibility coefficient (DC), compliance coefficient (CC) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were measured with QAS software, The statistical analysis was performed. Results Compared with control group, the IMT, α, β and PWV of carotid artery in hypertension group were significantly higher, DC and CC were significantly lower (all P<0.001). The IMT, α, β and PWV were increased with risk stratification of primary hypertension, while DC and CC were decreased with rising of risk stratification (all P<0.001). Pairwise comparisons showed the parameters were statistically different among patients with different risk stratification of primary hypertension (all P<0.05), except of α, β in low and medium risk subgroups (all P>0.05). In both of hypertension and control groups, PWV correlated with α, β, DC and CC (r=0.859, 0.816, －0.703, －0.676), α correlated with β, DC and CC (r=0.976, －0.595, －0.478), β correlated with DC and CC (r=－0.579, －0.445), DC correlated with CC (r=0.741), respectively (all P<0.001). IMT correlated positively with PWV, α and β (r=0.493, 0.404, 0.393), and correlated negatively with DC and CC (r=－0.516, －0.512, all P<0.001). Conclusion There was certain correlation between structure, elastic parameters of carotid artery and risk stratification in patients with primary hypertension. QIMT and QAS can provide direct basis for evaluating the risk stratification of patients with primary hypertension. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
