4.7 Article

Does Blood Pressure Inevitably Rise With Age? Longitudinal Evidence Among Forager-Horticulturalists

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 25-33

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.189100

关键词

hypertension; Tsimane; blood pressure; modernization

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging [R01AG024119, R56AG024119, R01AG024119-08]
  2. National Science Foundation [BCS-0422690]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rise in blood pressure with age is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and renal disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Age-related increases in blood pressure have been observed in almost every population, except among hunter-gatherers, farmers, and pastoralists. Here we tested for age-related increases in blood pressure among Tsimane forager-farmers. We also test whether lifestyle changes associated with modernization lead to higher blood pressure and a greater rate of age-related increase in blood pressure. We measured blood pressure longitudinally on 2248 adults age >= 20 years (n=6468 observations over 8 years). Prevalence of hypertension was 3.9% for women and 5.2% for men, although diagnosis of persistent hypertension based on multiple observations reduced prevalence to 2.9% for both sexes. Mixed-effects models revealed systolic, diastolic, and pulse blood pressure increases of 2.86 (P<0.001), 0.95 (P<0.001), and 1.95 mmHg (P<0.001) per decade for women and 0.91 (P<0.001), 0.93 (P<0.001), and -0.02 mmHg (P=0.93) for men, substantially lower than rates found elsewhere. Lifestyle factors, such as smoking and Spanish fluency, had minimal effect on mean blood pressure and no effect on age-related increases in blood pressure. Greater town proximity was associated with a lower age-related increase in pulse pressure. Effects of modernization were, therefore, deemed minimal among Tsimane, in light of their lean physique, active lifestyle, and protective diet. (Hypertension. 2012;60:25-33.). Online Data Supplement

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据