4.6 Article

Centenarian Offspring: Start Healthier and Stay Healthier

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 56, 期 11, 页码 2089-2092

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01949.x

关键词

centenarian; longevity; morbidity; familial

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [K08AG22785, K23 AG026754, K24 AG025727, U01 AG023755]
  2. Medical Student Training in Aging Research Program
  3. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [T32 HL007501]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the relative incidence of age-related diseases in a group of centenarian offspring who have thus far been considered to be predisposed to healthy aging. Longitudinal study. Nationwide sample. Four hundred forty centenarian offspring and 192 referent cohort subjects who met inclusion criteria of having initial and follow-up health questionnaire data available. Median age of both cohorts was 72 at the initial health questionnaire. Initial health questionnaires were collected from 1997 to 2006. Follow-up questionnaires were collected from 2004 to 2007. The mean period of follow-up was 3.5 +/- 1.7 years for the centenarian offspring and 3.9 +/- 2.2 years for the referent cohort. During the follow-up period, centenarian offspring had a 78% lower risk of myocardial infarction (P <.04), 83% lower risk of stroke (P <.004), and 86% lower risk of developing diabetes mellitus (P <.005) than the referent cohort. There were no significant differences in new onset of other age-related diseases. Additionally, centenarian offspring were 81% less likely to die (P <.01) than the referent cohort during the follow-up. These findings suggest that centenarian offspring retain some important cardiovascular advantages over time over similarly aged referent cohort subjects. These findings reinforce the notion that there may be physiological reasons that longevity runs in families and that centenarian offspring are more likely to age in better cardiovascular health and with a lower mortality than their peers.

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

4.6
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