4.6 Article

Racial Differences in Aortic Stiffness in Children

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 180, Issue -, Pages 62-67

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.09.071

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [R01 ES023252 02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate racial differences in central blood pressure and vascular structure/function as subclinical markers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in children. Study design This cross-sectional study recruited 54 African American children (18 female, 36 male; age 10.5 0.9 years) and 54 white children (27 female, 26 male; age 10.8 +/- 0.9 years) from the Syracuse City community as part of the Environmental Exposures and Child Health Outcomes study. Participants underwent blood lipid and vascular testing on 2 separate days. Carotid artery intima-media thickness and aortic stiffness were measured by ultrasonography and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, respectively. Blood pressure was assessed at the brachial artery and estimated in the carotid artery using applanation tonometry. Results African American children had significantly higher pulse wave velocity (4.8 +/- 0.8 m/s) compared with white children (4.2 0.7 m/s; P<.05), which remained significant after adjustment for confounding variables including socioeconomic status. African American children had significantly higher intima-media thickness (African American 0.41 +/- 0.06, white 0.39 +/- 0.05 mm), and carotid systolic blood pressure (African American 106 +/- 11, white 102 +/- 8 nnm Hg; P<.05) compared with white children, although these racial differences were no longer present after covariate adjustments for height. Conclusions Racial differences in aortic stiffness are present in childhood. Our findings suggest that racial differences in subclinical cardiovascular disease occur earlier than previously recognized.

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