4.5 Article

Electrolyte Intake and nonpharmacologic blood pressure control

Journal

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages 587-595

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00318-0

Keywords

sodium; potassium; hypertension; nutrition; measurement error

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R03 HL62429, R01 HL-48642, R03 HL-60197] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG-09799, R01 AG-09771, P60AG-10484, R01 AG09773] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To characterize relationships between sodium and potassium intakes and blood pressure control. METHODS: We analyzed repeated 24-hour diet recalls and 24-hour urine assays from 873 elderly participants with established hypertension in a 3-year clinical trial of lifestyle interventions. Pooled estimates of electrolyte intakes were developed using hierarchical measurement error models and related to nonpharmacologic blood pressure control. RESULTS: Relative decreases in sodium and increases in potassium intakes each had graded relation, ships with better blood-pressure control. After adjustment for measurement error, a 100 mmol/24-hour decrease in sodium intake was associated with an odds ratio of 2.93 [95% confidence interval: 1.83, 4.64] for maintaining nonpharmacologic blood pressure control throughout follow-up. A 50 mmol/24-hour increase in potassium intake was associated with an odds ratio of 2.00 [1.12, 3.55]. These relationships were independent of each other and of baseline levels of intakes. Blood pressure control was most strongly associated with sodium intake for participants with lower systolic blood pressures and longer duration of hypertension, and with potassium for those with elevated diastolic blood pressures. CONCLUSIONS: Sodium and potassium intakes exert independent graded influences on nonpharmacologic blood pressure control. Correlated measurement error may spuriously introduce a dependency among these relationships. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc.

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