4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Body Mass Index Has a Linear Relationship with Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 1422-1427

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8220

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY 15736, R01 EY007065, R01 EY015736, EY 07065, F32 EY007065] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To examine the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSFP), as low BMI and low CSFP have recently been described as risk factors for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS. This was a retrospective review of the electronic medical records of patients who had CSFP measured by lumbar puncture and data to calculate BMI at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). Exclusion criteria included diagnoses, surgical procedures and medications known to affect CSFP. Mean CSFP for each unit BMI was calculated. The probabilities were two-tailed, and the alpha level was set at P < 0.05. Patients with documented BMI, CSFP, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were analyzed for the relationship between IOP and BMI. RESULTS. A total of 4235 patients, primarily of Caucasian descent, met the entry criteria. Median BMI was 26 and the mean CSFP was 10.9 +/- 2.6 mm Hg. The increase in CSFP with increasing BMI was linear with an r(2) = 0.20 (P < 0.001). CSFP increased by 37.7% from BMI 18 (8.6 +/- 2.1 mm Hg) to BMI 39 (14.1 +/- 2.5 mm Hg). The r(2) (0.21) of the model of BMI and sex was similar to the r(2) of a BMI-only model (0.20). There was no relation between IOP and BMI within a subgroup of the study population (r(2) = 0.005; P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS. CSFP has a positive, linear relationship with BMI. IOP is not influenced by BMI. If CSFP influences the risk for POAG, then individuals with a lower BMI may have an increased risk for developing POAG. Similarly, a higher BMI may be protective. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:1422-1427) DOI:10.1167/iovs.11-8220

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