4.5 Article

Association Between Blood Heavy Metal Concentrations and Dyslipidemia in the Elderly

Journal

BIOLOGICAL TRACE ELEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 199, Issue 4, Pages 1280-1290

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s12011-020-02270-0

Keywords

Blood metals; Combined exposure; Dyslipidemia

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81102125]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that the combined exposure of aluminum, cobalt, and vanadium was a protective factor against dyslipidemia in the elderly Chinese population, while the combined exposure of cadmium, strontium, and lead was a risk factor for dyslipidemia.
Our objective was to evaluate the relationship of blood metal levels including strontium, cadmium, lead, vanadium, aluminum, cobalt, and manganese with dyslipidemia in the elderly Chinese population. In this study, stratified cluster sampling was adopted in the elderly in two communities of Lu'an City from June to September 2016, and 1013 participants were finally included. The inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) was used to measure the metals' concentrations in whole blood. After multivariable adjustment, the odds ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) of dyslipidemia associated with the highest quartile of metal concentrations were 1.32 (0.89 similar to 1.96), 1.28 (0.83 similar to 1.97), 1.86 (1.23 similar to 2.80), 0.80 (0.55 similar to 1.16), 0.76 (0.51 similar to 1.13), 0.76 (0.53 similar to 1.11), and 1.14 (0.78 similar to 1.67) for strontium, cadmium, lead, vanadium, aluminum, cobalt, and manganese, respectively, compared with the lowest quartile. After reducing the dimensionality of metal elements by principal component analysis, we found that the combined exposure of aluminum, cobalt, and vanadium was the protective factor of non-dyslipidemia, while the combined exposure of cadmium, strontium, and lead was the risk factor of dyslipidemia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available