4.6 Article

Four-year longitudinal associations of physical activity, waist circumference, and blood pressure in UK adolescents

期刊

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41390-023-02837-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the specific influence of physical activity and waist circumference on the growth trajectory of blood pressure in UK high-school students. The results showed that changes in waist circumference had the strongest impact on systolic blood pressure growth, while changes in physical activity had an influence on diastolic blood pressure growth. These findings are important for future prevention of hypertension and cardiovascular disease risk.
Background: This study assessed the specific influence of physical activity (PA) and waist circumference (WC) on the 4-year growth trajectory of blood pressure in UK high-school students.Methods: Four-year longitudinal monitoring of 1501 adolescents was conducted as part of the EoEHHS. Measurements were taken in Grades (G)7, 9, and 11.Results: Systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) increased over the 4-year period (SBP G7 114.6 +/- 8.9 mmHg, G9 118.1 +/- 9.7 mmHg, G11 122.8 +/- 7.8 mmHg; DBP G7 66.7 +/- 6.6 mmHg, G9 68.0 +/- 6.4 mmHg, G11 70.0 +/- 5.2 mmHg). Baseline WC predicted baseline and growth in SBP, but the strongest contribution to SBP came from changes in WC (beta = 0.084, p = 0.002). Baseline PAQ-A score (beta = -0.822, p = 0.020) and changes in PAQ-A score (beta = -0.650, p = 0.019) were associated with smaller increases in DBP over the 4-year measurement period.Conclusions: Baseline and change in WC predicted the growth trajectory of SBP, while baseline and change in PA predicted the growth trajectory of DBP. PA and WC have a prognostic value in predicting changes in blood pressure in adolescents. Increasing PA during adolescence could slow the rise in DBP over time. This is meaningful for future hypertension and CVD risk reduction into adulthood.

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