4.3 Article

Association of Smoking With Aortic Wave Reflection and Central Systolic Pressure and Metabolic Syndrome in Normotensive Japanese Men

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 617-623

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajh.2009.62

关键词

-

资金

  1. Seki Minato Foundation, Japan
  2. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND The influences of smoking habits on blood pressure (BP) may have been underestimated substantially on the basis of conventional measurements. We compared the radial augmentation index (AI), brachial and central pressures, and prevalence of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) among never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers in a population of Japanese healthy men. METHODS A total of 443 normotensive men who entered the health checkup program was divided into four groups according to smoking status; i.e., never smokers (n = 117), former smokers (n = 165), current mild-to-moderate smokers (n = 105), and current heavy smokers (n = 56). Radial pulse waveforms were obtained using radial tonometry (HEM-9000AI), and the AI and late systolic pressure in the radial artery, an estimate of central systolic pressure, were measured. RESULTS The AI was significantly higher in current smokers than both never and former smokers. Central systolic pressure was significantly higher in both current and former smokers than never smokers, although brachial systolic pressure was not significantly different among these groups. The MetS was more prevalent in current smokers than never smokers. CONCLUSION Smoking habits have substantially different effects on the AI and central systolic pressure despite a similar level of brachial systolic pressure. Along with higher prevalence of the MetS, elevated AI and central systolic pressure may be potential mechanisms responsible for an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in smokers. Am J Hypertens 2009; 22:617-623 (C) 2009 American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.

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

4.3
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