4.6 Article

Insomnia with Objective Short Sleep Duration is Associated with a High Risk for Hypertension

期刊

SLEEP
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 491-497

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/32.4.491

关键词

Insomnia; objective sleep duration; hypertension

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 51931, R01 40916, R01 64415]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objectives: To examine the joint effect of insomnia and objective short sleep duration on hypertension risk. Design: Representative cross-sectional study. Setting: Sleep laboratory. Participants: 1,741 men and women randomly selected from central Pennsylvania. Interventions: None. Measurements: Insomnia was defined by a complaint of insomnia with a duration >= 1 year, while poor sleep was defined as a complaint of difficulty falling asleep, staying asleep, or early final awakening. Polysomnographic sleep duration was classified into 3 categories: >= 6 h sleep (top 50% of the sample); 5-6 h (approximately the third quartile of the sample); and <= 5 h (approximately the bottom quartile of the sample). Hypertension was defined based either on blood pressure measures or treatment. We controlled for age, race, sex, body mass index, diabetes, smoking, alcohol use, depression, sleep disordered breathing (SDB), and sampling weight. Results: Compared to the normal sleeping and > 6 h sleep duration group, the highest risk of hypertension was in insomnia with < 5 h sleep duration group (OR [95% CI] 5.1 [2.2, 11.8]), and the second highest in insomnia who slept 5-6 hours (OR 3.5 [1.6, 7.9] P < 0.01). The risk for hypertension was significantly higher, but of lesser magnitude, in poor sleepers with short sleep duration. Conclusions: Insomnia with short sleep duration is associated with increased risk of hypertension, to a degree comparable to that of other common sleep disorders, e.g., SDB. Objective sleep duration may predict the severity of chronic insomnia a prevalent condition whose medical impact has been apparently underestimated.

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