4.6 Article

Dyslipidemia and the Risk of Developing Hypertension in a Working-Age Male Population

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.115.003053

Keywords

cohort study; hypertension; lipids; prediction; risk factor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-Hypertension is one of the main comorbidities associated with dyslipidemia. This study aimed to examine the extent to which dyslipidemia increases the risk of developing hypertension in a Japanese working-age male population. Methods and Results-We analyzed data from 14 215 nonhypertensive male workers (age 38 +/- 9 years) who underwent annual medical checkups. Subjects were followed up for a median of 4 years to determine new-onset hypertension, defined as blood pressure (BP) = 140/90 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive medication. The associations between serum lipid levels and development of hypertension were examined. During the follow-up period, 1483 subjects developed hypertension. After adjusting for age, body mass index, impaired fasting glucose/diabetes, baseline BP category, alcohol intake, smoking, exercise, and parental history of hypertension, subjects with a total cholesterol (TC) level = 222 mg/dL were at a significantly increased risk of developing hypertension (hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.06-1.56) compared to subjects with a TC level = 167 mg/dL. Similar results were observed for subjects with high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC) levels. A U-shaped relationship was found between HDLC level and risk of hypertension; compared to the third quintile, the multiadjusted hazard ratio was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.03-1.43) in the lowest quintile and 1.34 (95% CI: 1.12-1.60) in the highest quintile. Conclusions-Elevated serum levels of TC, LDLC, and non-HDLC were associated with an increased risk of hypertension in working-age Japanese men. For HDLC, risk of hypertension was increased at both low and high levels.

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