4.6 Article

Long-Term Visit-To-Visit Blood Pressure Variability and Risk of Diabetes Mellitus in Chinese Population: A Retrospective Population-Based Study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1605445

Keywords

China; diabetes mellitus; blood pressure; variability; cohort

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the association between visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and incident diabetes risk in a Chinese population. It found that higher variability in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure was independently associated with increased risk of diabetes, and the risk was even higher when both were present together.
Objectives: To examine the association between visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) and incident diabetes mellitus (DM) risk in a Chinese population.Methods: Data comes from China Health and Nutrition Survey (n = 15,084). BPV was estimated as the average real variability (ARV) using at least three BP measurements from the year preceding the event and was divided into quartiles. Participants were also categorized into 9 groups on the basis of combinations of systolic BPV (SBPV) and diastolic BPV (DBPV) tertiles. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used.Results: During a median follow-up of 16.8 years, 1,030 (6.8%) participants developed diabetes (incidence rate: 4.65/1,000 person-years). The HRs (95% CIs) for the highest quartile (vs. the lowest quartile) of SBPV and DBPV were 1.60 (1.30-1.97) and 1.37 (1.13-1.67), respectively. Participants with both highest SBPV and DBPV tertile had an approximate to 89% higher risk of DM (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.47-2.42) compared with those in the both SBPV and DBPV tertile 1 group.Conclusion: Higher SBP ARV and DBP ARV were independently associated with increased risk of incident DM, which was augmented when both presented together.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available