4.5 Article

Impaired fasting glucose as an independent risk factor for hypertension among healthy middle-aged Japanese subjects with optimal blood pressure: the Yuport Medical Checkup Centre retrospective cohort study

期刊

DIABETOLOGY & METABOLIC SYNDROME
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1758-5996-5-81

关键词

Fasting plasma glucose; Impaired fasting glucose; Optimal blood pressure; Hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study aimed at investigating whether impaired fasting glucose (IFG) is an independent risk factor for incident hypertension among middle-aged Japanese subjects with optimal blood pressure (OBP). Findings: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 2943 non-diabetic and non-hypertensive subjects aged 40-64 years, who participated in a voluntary health check-up program during the baseline (1998-2002) and follow-up periods (2002-2006). A multiple logistic regression model was utilized to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of incident hypertension among men and women with IFG and OBP. OBP was defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <120 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <80 mmHg, with no known history of hypertension. In this study, hypertension was defined as SBP >= 140 mmHg and DBP >= 90 mmHg or by a self-reported clinical diagnosis of hypertension. After the mean follow-up period of 5.6 years, the incidence of hypertension in men and women was 5.7% (73/1270) and 3.8% (62/1673), respectively. The age-adjusted ORs for incident hypertension in men and women with IFG were 1.95 (95% CI, 1.21-3.15) and 3.54 (95% CI, 2.00-6.27), respectively. After adjusting for age, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, total cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and uric acid, the ORs for hypertension were 1.66 (95% CI; 1.02-2.70) for men and 2.62 (95% CI, 1.45-4.73) for women. Conclusion: The study results show that IFG may act as an independent risk factor for developing hypertension in individuals with OBP.

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

4.5
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