4.6 Article

Snoring and the metabolic syndrome in women

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages 531-536

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9457(03)00160-6

Keywords

diabetes; metabolic syndrome; sleep; snoring; women

Funding

  1. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL045785] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [1201-HL 45785] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The main objective was to examine the association between metabolic syndrome, snoring and sleep quality among women. Methods: The study sample comprised healthy women (30-65 years) from the greater Stockholm area. Snoring and sleep quality were measured by the Karolinska Sleep Questionnaire. The metabolic syndrome was defined as the presence of two or more of the following components: (1) fasting serum glucose level greater than or equal to 7.0 mmol/L; (2) arterial blood pressure greater than or equal to 140/90 mmHg; (3) fasting serum triglycerides greater than or equal to 1.7 mmol/L and/or HDL cholesterol < 1.05 mmol/L; and (4) obesity (waist-to-hip ratio > 0.85 and/or BMI greater than or equal to 28 kg/m(2)). Results: After adjustment for age, the risk ratio of metabolic syndrome among snorers as compared to non-snorers was 4.50 (95% CI: 1.71-11.86; p = 0.002). This association persisted after controlling for menopausal status, educational level, smoking, fatigue and exercise habits. Poor sleep quality showed a trend (OR: 3.31; 95% CI: 0.89-12.21; p = 0.073) towards an increased risk for metabolic syndrome, but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Snoring may be a strong predictor for metabolic syndrome in middle-aged women. These findings show that snoring women are not only at increased risk for individual risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, but also for metabolic syndrome. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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