4.7 Article

Age-adjusted cut-off values of lipid accumulation product (LAP) for predicting hypertension

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90648-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Program for Fundamental Research of RAS (2017-2021) [AAAA-A17-117012310157-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that in healthy subjects, the values of lipid accumulation product (LAP) increased with age, while the values did not vary with age in patients with hypertension. Therefore, age-adjusted cut-off values of LAP should be used in diagnosing hypertension to accurately assess the risk.
Among the many factors considered relevant to hypertension, obesity and metabolic disturbances play an important role in the development of this pathology. Therefore, lipid accumulation product (LAP), an index of visceral adiposity, is a simple and effective indicator of hypertension risk. To date, the reference and cut-off values for LAP have not been defined. The aim of the study was to determine the age-adjusted optimal cut-off values of LAP for the prediction of hypertension risk. This cross-sectional case-control study comprised 1960 subjects ranging from 20 to 64 years of age. The participants underwent anthropometric tests, blood pressure measurements, questionnaire surveys and laboratory examinations. The cut-off values of LAP were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. According to our study results, LAP values in healthy subjects increased with age, whereas there was no effect of age on LAP values in patients with hypertension. These two findings determine the presence of age-adjusted cut-off values of LAP for diagnosing hypertension. Increasing age is associated with an increase in the cut-off values of LAP to detect hypertension. In conclusion, hypertension risk should be estimated using the age-adjusted cut-off values of LAP; otherwise, the risk of hypertension might be overestimated or 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

4.7
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