4.7 Article

Neither perceived job stress nor individual cardiovascular reactivity predict high blood pressure

Journal

HYPERTENSION
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages 1112-1116

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000102862.93418.EE

Keywords

epidemiology; stress; clinical trials; hypertension, essential; blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have reported that high job strain was associated with a significantly higher diastolic blood pressure ( DBP) of 4.5 mm Hg during the working hours, irrespective of BP reactivity to a stress test. We report the final results of the first 5- year follow- up study, which aimed to assess the respective influences of perception of professional strain and cardiovascular reactivity to a mental stress test on BP. A cohort of 292 healthy subjects ( mean +/- SEM age, 38 +/- 1 years) was followed up for progression to hypertension outcome, which was defined as an increase in systolic blood pressure ( SBP) or DBP > 7 mmHg or a DBP > 95 mm Hg during follow- up. None of the subjects was lost to follow- up, and 209 subjects completed the study. The high- strain ( HS) group, representing 20.9% of the subjects, was compared with the remaining subjects ( non - high- strain [ NHS]). Similarly, the subjects with the highest BP stress reactivity ( HR; 20.9% of subjects) were compared with the remaining subjects ( NHR). Progression to hypertension was reached by 93 subjects ( 31.8%). Kaplan- Meier survival estimates revealed that neither HS nor HR increased the incidence of progression to hypertension. End- of- follow- up 24- hour ambulatory BPs that were similar in HS and NHS ( 120 +/- 2 vs 120 +/- 1 mm Hg, respectively) and in HR and NHR ( 122 +/- 2 vs 120 +/- 1 mm Hg, respectively) confirmed our findings. Age, alcohol, salt diet, body mass index, and occupation did not interfere with our results. In conclusion, cardiovascular HR and HS do not appear to be major risk markers for future high BP in healthy, young adults.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available