% 0期刊文章%一个纳西尔Fakhri %斯科特·穆迪% Kayleigh穆雷%萨曼莎·科斯塔% Shadi Yaghi %一个蒂娜伯顿% (Shawna切割%琳达温德尔·阿里Mahta % %一个布拉德福德·汤普森% Shyam Rao % N·史蒂文森·波特% Brian Mac Grory凯伦富里% %迈克尔Reznik % T血压在医院的到来并不可靠区分高血压脑出血(p5.3 - 002) % D J神经病学2019% % P p5.3 - 002 V % 92% N % X 15补充目的:确定到达血压(BP)应该被用来区分脑出血(我)的病因。首页背景:高血压是我的一个已知的危险因素,但目前尚不清楚英国石油(BP)海拔在医院的到来可以可靠区分高血压我non-hypertensive病因。设计/方法:我们进行了回顾性单中心队列研究使用的数据从2018年February-June连续我的病人。我功能,包括认为病因是前瞻性裁决由两个参加神经学家。我们比较患者的第一个记录收缩压(SBP)和平均动脉压(MAP)分层,高血压与non-hypertensive我病因,并调整人口结构,并使用线性回归最初到达的位置。在敏感性分析中,我们使用我的位置,而不是病因给潜在的主观裁决。结果:有110我的病人在我们的队列(平均年龄69.1(标准差17.7),55%男性,我分数中值1.5(差1 - 2))。最常见的病因是高血压(58%)、脑淀粉样血管病(19%)和血管病变(6%);最常见的位置是深(43%)、大叶性(37%),和infratentorial (14%)。高血压患者意味着SBP和地图我是158.8(标准差29.7)和109.0(标准差18.3),相比157.1(标准差33.4)和108.2(标准差21.2)在non-hypertensive我(p = 0.78;p = 0.82)。调整模型表明,相对于高血压我,non-hypertensive患者我有类似的到来BP(意味着SBP和地图的区别(95%置信区间),0.2−12.3 - -11.8和0.8−−[−8.4 - -6.8])。 In a sensitivity analysis, we found that lobar and infratentorial ICH had similar arrival BP relative to deep ICH (mean SBP and MAP difference [95% CI], 2.1 [−11.1–15.3] and 0.2 [− 8.3–8.6] for lobar ICH; 6.5 [−12.0–25.0] and 3.8 [−8.0–15.6] for infratentorial ICH).Conclusions: Arrival BP should not be used as a primary determinant of likely ICH etiology, as hypertension may be implicated in various subtypes of ICH.Disclosure: Dr. Fakhri has nothing to disclose. Dr. Moody has nothing to disclose. Dr. Murray has nothing to disclose. Dr. Costa has nothing to disclose. Dr. Yaghi has nothing to disclose. Dr. Burton has nothing to disclose. Dr. Cutting has nothing to disclose. Dr. Mahta has nothing to disclose. Dr. Wendell has nothing to disclose. Dr. Thompson has nothing to disclose. Dr. Rao has nothing to disclose. Dr. Potter has nothing to disclose. Dr. Furie has nothing to disclose. Dr. Mac Grory has nothing to disclose. Dr. Reznik has nothing to disclose. %U

map