当前位置:循环首页>正文

[ISH2010]合并糖尿病的高血压患者预防血管病变和降压策略——Chalmers教授专访

作者:国际循环网   日期:2010/10/12 15:09:59

国际循环网版权所有,谢绝任何形式转载,侵犯版权者必予法律追究。

<International Circulation> : Ok professor Chalmers, can you give us your views on how we can best conduct treatment. In general some of the key or most important things that we can do, or clinicians can do to reduce the burden of vascular disease in diabetic patients. Because that’s something, especially in China with the growing instants of diabetes, a lot of clinicians are interested in this area, so what are your comments?

     <International Circulation> :  Do you think there is still some confusion among clinicians regarding how tight control should be for both glucose and blood pressure values due to different results in clinical trials?

 

   《国际循环》:您认为对于临床医生而言,对这类患者血糖和血压控制的水平标准会不会发生混淆,因为我们发现临床试验存在争议,他们该如何掌握患者的血糖和血压控制的基准水平?

    Professor Chalmers : You are absolutely correct. There is a lot of confusion and you can not blame primary care physicians or even specialists for that matter because there is disparity among the results of clinical trials. My own view is that if you look at the disparity between ADVANCE and ACCORD in the glucose arm, overall there is a benefit but smaller than you would hope for in the more intensive glucose control group. Probably, the level of 6 aimed for in ACCORD is going too low but I would say it is definitely worth going below 7 and probably a good range is from 6.5~7.0 and you should aim to get below 7 but not all the way to 6. That is probably supported by the metanalyses that we published jointly with ACCORD, ADVANCE, VADT, and UKPDS. For blood pressure, my own view is that it would be a mistake to undue the 130/80mm/Hg recommendations because we would cause dreadful confusion among general practitioners if we go back to 140/90mm/Hg for the diabetic population without having specific evidence against it. If we do that we will probably get general practitioners thinking that blood pressure is not important anymore and we will do more harm than good. We do need trials that specifically address 130/80mm/Hg, which is not what ACCORD did because ACCORD addressed 120/80mm/Hg. Therefore, I feel we need more definitive evidence but in the meantime I would not change the goals.

    Chalmers教授:你的说法非常正确,的确存在许多混淆,但你并不能因此而责怪初级保健医生或专家,因为临床试验结果不一致导致血糖和血压控制标准的混淆。我认为如果你对这些试验结果差异进行比较,比如把近期和血糖水平一致的结果综合,这是有好处的,但会比你所期望更强的血糖控制力度要小。但将血糖水平控制到低于6很可能太低了。我认为低于7就非常有效,或是6.5-7之间。我可能会将血糖控制在低于7而非6。而且我们发表的meta分析连同更深入的BADT 和UK PDF分析的结果都支持上述观点。我认为取消将血压控制在130/80以下这个标准是错误的,因为这会在普通医疗实践中造成可怕的误导。如果我们在无任何特殊迹象情况下将糖尿病患者血压控制标准调回到140/90,开业医生会认为控制血压不再是关键,这样做是弊大于利的。我们需要试验证实130/80这一血压控制水平的重要性,我们需要更多确定的证据但同时我将不会改变这一标准。

上一页  [1]  [2]  [3]  [4]  下一页

版面编辑:沈会会  责任编辑:张衡



高血压血管病变降压策略

分享到: 更多


设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 关于我们 | 联系方式 | 招贤纳士
声明:国际循环网( www.icirculation.com)对刊载的所有文章、视频、幻灯、音频等资源拥有全部版权。未经本站许可,不得转载。
京ICP备15014970号-5  互联网药品信息服务资格证书编号(京)-非经营性-2017-0063  京公网安备 11010502033353号  增值电信业务经营许可证:京ICP证150541号
国际循环 版权所有   © 2004-2025 www.icirculation.com All Rights Reserved
公司名称:北京美赞广告有限公司 公司地址:北京市朝阳区朝阳门北大街乙12号天辰大厦1座1409 电话:010-51295530