4.6 Article

Pressure-Natriuresis Response Is Diminished in Old Age

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.840840

关键词

salt sensitivity; pressure; natriuresis; hypertension; old

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2020R1F1A1048586]
  2. Kyung Hee University [KHU-20201225]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Age-related alterations in renal sodium handling may contribute to the elevation of blood pressure, as the pressure-natriuresis response is diminished in older individuals.
BackgroundAge-related alterations in renal sodium handling affect blood pressure (BP). We aimed to clarify whether the pressure-natriuresis response changes with age, leading to BP elevation. MethodsA total of 4,859 participants with normal renal function from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES) and 235 patients with non-diabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD) from the ESPECIAL trial were included and divided into the younger and older groups. In ESPECIAL, participants took olmesartan from weeks 0 to 16 and were educated about a low-salt diet (LSD) from weeks 8 to 16. ResultsIn both studies, older participants showed lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine concentration index and higher albuminuria. In KoGES, BP was higher and urine sodium was lower in older participants. In ESPECIAL, diastolic BP at 0 week was lower in older participants. Olmesartan reduced BP in both groups, whereas LSD decreased systolic BP only in older participants. Urine sodium increased in younger participants but decreased in older participants after olmesartan use. In KoGES, urine sodium was correlated with BP in both groups after adjusting for age, sex, and eGFR; however, the correlation coefficient was lower in older participants. In ESPECIAL, only younger participants showed a significant positive association between systolic BP and urine sodium in multiple regression analysis. ConclusionsThe pressure-natriuresis response was diminished in older participants with or without CKD.

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